{ "id": 8524703, "name": "In the Matter of the Will of MABEL W. DUPREE", "name_abbreviation": "In re the Will of Dupree", "decision_date": "1986-05-06", "docket_number": "No. 8511SC1043", "first_page": "519", "last_page": "523", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "80 N.C. App. 519" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "309 S.E. 2d 243", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "245" }, { "page": "245", "parenthetical": "listing seven factors which bear on the question of undue influence" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 753", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4769484 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "756" }, { "page": "756-57" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0753-01" ] }, { "cite": "331 S.E. 2d 193", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "194" }, { "page": "194" }, { "page": "194" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "75 N.C. App. 649", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526631 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "650-51" }, { "page": "651" }, { "page": "651" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/75/0649-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E. 2d 198", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "199" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573281 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "54" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0052-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 420, "char_count": 7593, "ocr_confidence": 0.775, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0464441470126861e-07, "percentile": 0.5522489921227067 }, "sha256": "63b683e8b8f0ac23794e3def3534562e30a58a057620baefcba0ed7d77c6e2f8", "simhash": "1:8ae465206cddefed", "word_count": 1290 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:01:08.586003+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Johnson and Martin concur." ], "parties": [ "In the Matter of the Will of MABEL W. DUPREE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BECTON, Judge.\nThis case involves the purported last will and testament of Mrs. Mabel Dupree, who died on 25 July 1982. The propounders of this will, dated 4 June 1982, are Ruth Cline and her husband, Herman Cline, nephew of Mrs. Dupree\u2019s deceased husband, William Dupree. The caveators are Larry Woodell, also a nephew of Mr. Dupree, and Steve Dupree, Mr. Dupree\u2019s brother.\nI\nMrs. Dupree was seventy-two years of age when she died. She had no children. William Dupree had died in 1973, leaving an estate in excess of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00). In the nine years before her death, Mrs. Dupree had executed at least four wills. Three of them were prepared by attorney Kenneth Hoyle. The beneficiaries of the first three wills and the percentages of the inheritances are set out below;\nFirst Will (1973)\nThe Wickers (Mrs. Dupree\u2019s relatives) approx. 33V3\u00b0/o\nThe Clines approx. 3373%\nSteve Dupree approx. 16%%\nLarry Woodell approx. 16%%\nSecond Will (1974)\nThe Clines 70%\nLarry Woodell 20%\nSteve Dupree 10%\nThird Will (1978)\nThe Clines 70%\nLarry Woodell 20%\nSteve Dupree 10%\nThe Clines Home worth $47,789.00\nThe fourth will, which is the object of this dispute, was prepared by attorney W. W. Seymour in 1982, and purported to devise 100% of her estate to the Clines.\nA Lee County jury found that the deceased had sufficient mental capacity to execute a will, but that the fourth will had been procured by undue influence and was therefore not the last will and testament of Mrs. Dupree.\nThe Clines raise one question on appeal \u2014 whether there was sufficient evidence to present the issue of undue influence to the jury. We find that there was, and we affirm the judgment entered according to the jury\u2019s verdict.\nII\nThe Clines assign error to the trial court\u2019s denial of their motions for a directed verdict at the close of the caveators\u2019 evidence and again at the close of all the evidence.\nIn determining whether caveators have made out a prima facie case sufficient to withstand a motion for a directed verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to caveators, deeming their evidence to be true, resolving all conflicts in their favor, and giving them the benefit of every reasonable favorable inference. See In re Andrews, 299 N.C. 52, 261 S.E. 2d 198 (1980); In re Will of Fields, 75 N.C. App. 649, 650-51, 331 S.E. 2d 193, 194 (1985).\nUndue influence is the substitution of the mind of the person exercising the influence for the mind of the one executing the instrument, causing her to make a will which she otherwise would not have made. See Hardee v. Hardee, 309 N.C. 753, 756, 309 S.E. 2d 243, 245 (1983). To prove undue influence, the caveators must show more than mere influence or persuasion. They must show some controlling force sufficient to destroy the free agency of the testatrix, such as to make the will properly the expression of the wishes of one other than the testatrix. See In re Fields, 75 N.C. App. at 651, 331 S.E. 2d at 194.\nAlthough the North Carolina Supreme Court has enumerated certain factors which may be probative on the issue of undue influence, the very nature of undue influence prevents a court from establishing precise tests by which to determine its existence. Id.; see also Hardee, 309 N.C. at 756-57, 309 S.E. 2d at 245 (listing seven factors which bear on the question of undue influence). Therefore, caveators must ordinarily rely on circumstantial evidence and the inferences which may be drawn from it. See Andrews, 299 N.C. at 54, 261 S.E. 2d at 199.\nThe caveators in this case produced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of undue influence. Caveators\u2019 evidence tended to show that in the days immediately preceding and following the making of the fourth will, Mrs. Dupree had been hospitalized, was depressed, confused and not mentally clear; that she was physically and mentally incapable of managing her own affairs; and that she was \u201ctotally out of her head,\u201d \u201cgrasping at objects in the air,\u201d \u201cliving in the past,\u201d disoriented and paranoid.\nCaveators\u2019 evidence was also that the Clines were with Mrs. Dupree constantly in her final weeks, moving into her home and not allowing others to be alone with her. Mrs. Dupree was very dependent on the Clines, especially on Ruth Cline, who would often do Mrs. Dupree\u2019s talking for her. The Clines did not notify some of Mrs. Dupree\u2019s closest neighbors and relatives of her illnesses or hospitalizations and discouraged others from visiting her.\nFurther, the Clines took Mrs. Dupree to attorney Seymour to make the fourth will, even though they knew that attorney Hoyle had handled the legal affairs for William and Mabel Dupree for many years. Mr. Seymour had done no legal work for the Duprees for twenty years prior to the making of the fourth will. Mr. Seymour testified that he had not been aware of Mrs. Dupree\u2019s deteriorating physical and mental condition in the days and weeks prior to the making of the fourth will. Had he known that she was having delusions about her doctor and Mr. Hoyle wanting to steal her money and put her in a nursing home, he would have inquired further into her mental state.\nMoreover, Larry Woodell and Steve Dupree had been named as beneficiaries ever since Mrs. Dupree first made a will in 1973. There is no evidence that anything had ever happened to change or damage Mrs. Dupree\u2019s good relationship with either of them.\nWe have outlined only some of the evidence on which caveat-ors relied. Although propounders produced some contradictory evidence, caveators\u2019 evidence was sufficient to go to the jury, and the verdict was not so against the greater weight of the evidence as to require its being set aside. See In re Fields, 75 N.C. App. at 651, 331 S.E. 2d at 194.\nNo error.\nJudges Johnson and Martin concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BECTON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Bryan, Jones, Johnson & Snow, by Robert C. Bryan, for pro-pounder appellants.", "Love & Wicker, P.A., by Jimmy L. Love, for caveator ap-pellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In the Matter of the Will of MABEL W. DUPREE\nNo. 8511SC1043\n(Filed 6 May 1986)\nWills \u00a7 21.4\u2014 undue influence \u2014 evidence sufficient\nThe trial court properly denied the propounders\u2019 motions for a directed verdict where caveators produced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of undue influence in that the testatrix had been hospitalized, was depressed, confused and not mentally clear in the days immediately preceding and following the making of her fourth and last will; she was physically and mentally incapable of managing her own affairs; she was \u201ctotally out of her head,\u201d \u201cgrasping at objects in the air,\u201d \u201cliving in the past,\u201d disoriented and paranoid; the propounders, the Clines, were with the testatrix constantly in her final weeks, moving into her home and not allowing others to be alone with her; the testatrix was very dependent on the propounders, especially on Ruth Cline, who would often do the testatrix\u2019s talking for her; the Clines did not notify some of the testatrix\u2019s closest neighbors and relatives of her illnesses or hospitalizations and discouraged others from visiting her; the Clines took the testatrix to an attorney other than the attorney who had handled the legal affairs of the Duprees for many years; caveators had been named as beneficiaries ever since testatrix first made a will but were not in the final will; and there was no evidence that anything had ever happened to change or damage testatrix\u2019s good relationship with either of them.\nAppeal by propounder from W. F. Bowen, Judge. Judgment entered 15 October 1984 in Superior Court, Lee County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 February 1986.\nBryan, Jones, Johnson & Snow, by Robert C. Bryan, for pro-pounder appellants.\nLove & Wicker, P.A., by Jimmy L. Love, for caveator ap-pellees." }, "file_name": "0519-01", "first_page_order": 547, "last_page_order": 551 }