procurers, lawyers who prepared the will, received a $7,000 fee at the time the will was signed and one of them was bequeathed $10,000 under the will
How later courts described this case
- procurers, lawyers who prepared the will, received a $7,000 fee at the time the will was signed and one of them was bequeathed $10,000 under the will
- trial court erred in failing to shift burden to proponents; will under consideration declared void
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting. The majority has succumbed to the temptation to retry this case. The fact that we review a case de novo from the probate court does not mean that we substitute our judgment for that of the judgment of the trial court. The legal argument made on appeal that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard regarding the burden of proof, was not presented to the trial court and is presented to us for the first time. I cannot say from the record what standard the trial court applied; therefore, I can only examine his findings to see if they are clearly wrong. ARCP Rule 52. I cannot say he was wrong from this record. There is an abundance of testimony that could be recited, if we were of a mind to, to justify upholding the probate judge’s finding that the proponents of the will met their burden of proof. There was strong testimony that the testatrix was of sound mind, knew exactly what she was doing, and was not influenced in any way by those alleged to have influenced her. The role of W. B. Guthrie is insignificant, because in either will he was to receive the same bequest.
Adkisson, C.J. and George Rose Smith, J. join.