Heim v. Thomas

The trial court has found that there was an opportunity for undue influence; that there were dispositions on the part of Carl J. Thomas to exercise undue influence; and that the circumstances surrounding the making and execution of the will in question were shrouded in secrecy— circumstances which raised the suspicion of the court. These findings are sustained by the evidence and all of the surrounding circumstances.

The proof of undue influence generally rests in circumstantial evidence. Here, the proof is more direct, definite, and certain. It is difficult to read this evidence and believe…