Williamson v. Zielinski

“The burden of proof to establish that a testator had testamentary capacity is upon the proponent of the will … [h]owever when a will is executed in due form [the proponent if the will] is entitled to the benefit of a presumption that the testator is competent.” Clauder v. Morser, 204 Or 378, 386 (1955). "A contestant of a will ... bears the burden to establish the existence of ‘a suspicion of undue influence,’ meaning that (1) a ‘confidential relationship’ exists between the testator and the beneficiary, ‘such that the beneficiary held a position of dominance over the testator’; and (2) there are ‘suspicious circumstances surrounding the procurement or execution of the will.’ Knutsen v. Krippendorf, 124 Or App 299, 308 (1993).

There were two competing claims to the estate of Nettie Schoolcraft between Maycie Williamson (decedent’s granddaughter) who wanted to enforce a 2018 will, and Eddie Zielinski (decedent's son) who wanted to enforce a 2020 will. The trial court admitted the 2020 will into probate, finding that Zielinski met his burden of proof “as to the testamentary capacity of the decedent and that there was no undue influence with regard to the September 1, 2020 Will.” On appeal, Williamson assigned error to both trial court findings. “The burden of proof to establish that a testator had testamentary capacity is upon the proponent of the will … [h]owever when a will is executed in due form [the proponent if the will] is entitled to the benefit of a presumption that the testator is competent.” Clauder v. Morser, 204 Or 378, 386 (1955). The Court held that because two witnesses testified credibly to the decedent competency at the time of execution of the 2020 will, Williamson failed to rebut the presumption afforded to Zielinski, and thus the trial court did not err. Furthermore, the Court held that there was no undue influence exerted by Zielinski when the testator executed the 2020 will. "A contestant of a will … bears the burden to establish the existence of ‘a suspicion of undue influence,’ meaning that (1) a ‘confidential relationship’ exists between the testator and the beneficiary, ‘such that the beneficiary held a position of dominance over the testator’; and (2) there are ‘suspicious circumstances surrounding the procurement or execution of the will.’ Knutsen v. Krippendorf, 124 Or App 299, 308 (1993). The Court reasoned that the testator’s decision to disinherit Williamson stemmed from concern about Willamson’s “misappropriation of her money well before there was any discussion of making a new will” and not from any influence exerted by Zielinski; and that several disinterested witnesses testified that the decedent was of sound mind and received independent counsel at the time of her execution of the 2020 will. Therefore, there were no suspicious circumstance to sustain a finding of undue influence. Affirmed.