Estate of Straisinger

Good Law
247 Cal. App. 2d 574·55 Cal. Rptr. 750
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 3, 19678264California4,149 words

Opinion

Opinion

Following a special jury verdict in a will contest before probate, a judgment was entered admitting Maude Straisinger's will to probate. Contestants appeal from the judgment.

In their written opposition to the probate of the will, contestants specified five grounds: Unsound mind, improper execution of the will, fraud, undue influence, and estoppel. Improper execution was abandoned at pretrial; the causes of action based upon unsound mind and estoppel were dismissed on a motion for a nonsuit at the close of contestants' case; and the jury was directed to find against contestants on the fraud cause of action. On undue influence, the only issue submitted to the jury, the verdict was adverse to the contestants.

[1] [See fn. 1] Contestants appeal on the following grounds: (1) The court erroneously granted a nonsuit on the estoppel cause of action and (2) on the undue influence issue, the court erroneously (a) excluded certain testimony and (b) failed to instruct the jury on the presumption of undue influence. [1]

Since the contestants do not attack the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdict on the issue of undue influence, it is unnecessary to review the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.