Brooks v. Julian

I respectfully dissent because the evidence authorized the jury to find undue influence.

Generally, the question of undue influence is for the fact finder. Mathis v.• Hammond, 268 Ga. 158,160 (3) (486 SE2d 356) (1997). Evidence of the testatrix’s diminished mental capacity is relevant to the exercise of undue influence because the amount of influence which may dominate a mind impaired by age or disease may be decidedly less than that required to control a strong mind. Murchison v. Smith, 270 Ga. 169, 171-172 (508 SE2d 641) (1998).

The majority states that there is no direct evidence that Brooks…