Legal Opinion

Rothwell v. Singleton

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided June 6, 2008No. 2007-CA-001348-MRPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

THOMPSON, Judge.

This is a will contest action wherein it is alleged that a holographic will is void because the testator lacked testamentary capacity and the beneficiary exerted undue influence over the testator. The trial court found that because a prior jury found that the testator had testamentary capacity when she executed a different will, the doctrine of res judicata applied and dismissed the claim. As to the issue of undue influence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the sole beneficiary, E. Eloise Singleton.

The parties to this action have a lengthy history of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Yeoman v. Com., Health Policy Bd.Kentucky Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Bye v. MattinglyKentucky Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Gibbs v. WickershamCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2004
  4. Burke v. BurkeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1990
  5. Zeiss v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1969

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Colorama, Inc. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2009
  2. Hbr Madisonville, LLC v. Lori AtteburyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API