Whitacre v. Crowe
Court of Appeals of Ohio
972 N.E.2d 659 (2012)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Kay Whitacre’s will named her daughter, Victoria (defendant), as the sole beneficiary and her son, Michael, as executor of her estate. The will made no mention of Kay’s three other children, Shawn, Angie, and Nick (plaintiffs). After Kay died and the will was admitted to probate, Shawn, Angie, and Nick filed a complaint contesting the validity of the will’s execution under Ohio law. Kay had signed the will in her upstairs bedroom, where a one-way video monitor transmitted video and audio of Kay to others in the living room downstairs. The monitor did not transmit sound or video in the other direction, from downstairs to upstairs. After Kay signed the will, her son, Michael, brought it downstairs, where Sara White and Joseph Reich signed the will as witnesses. Kay’s daughter, Victoria, was also present. The door to Kay’s bedroom was open at the time, and thus she may have been able to hear conversations and people in the living room below. Concluding that the witnesses had not attested and subscribed Kay’s will within her “conscious presence,” as required by Ohio law, the trial court granted summary judgment to Shawn, Angie, and Nick. Victoria appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Carr, J.)
Dissent (Belfance, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
