Jackson v. Davis

6 Citing cases

  1. Heard v. Heard

    497 So. 2d 1109 (Ala. 1986)

    On summary judgment, where the proponents of the will have supported their motion with evidence establishing that the testator executed his will under his own volition and devised his property in accordance with his free will and desires, the contestants must adduce at least a scintilla of evidence as to each of the following elements in order to defeat the motion: "(1) that a confidential relationship existed between a favored beneficiary and the testator; (2) that the influence of or for the beneficiary was dominant and controlling in that relationship; and (3) that there was undue activity on the part of the dominant party in procuring the execution of the will." Windham v. Pope, 474 So.2d 1075, 1077 (Ala. 1985) (emphasis added); Jackson v. Davis, 398 So.2d 242, 244 (Ala. 1981); Pruitt v. Pruitt, 343 So.2d 495, 499 (Ala. 1976). The scintilla rule, however, "is not satisfied by speculation" and the "evidence to support undue influence must provide at least a reasonable inference, rather than mere suspicion."

  2. Smith v. Smith

    482 So. 2d 1161 (Ala. 1986)   Cited 4 times
    Reversing a judgment entered on a jury verdict for the contestant and holding that there was not “sufficient evidence of undue influence to allow the court to ... submit the case to the jury”

    368 So.2d at 854. This precise issue was addressed by this Court in Jackson v. Davis, 398 So.2d 242 (Ala. 1981), wherein we were presented with facts remarkably similar to those in the instant case. In Jackson, the testator had been living with his brother, Alton Davis, until early July 1978, at which time he moved in with his sister Irene and her husband.

  3. Burns v. Marshall

    767 So. 2d 347 (Ala. 2000)   Cited 8 times

    Sessions v. Handley, 470 So.2d at 1167 (quoting Arrington v. Working Woman's Home, 368 So.2d 851 (Ala. 1979)). "Evidence [offered to support a claim of] undue influence must provide at least a reasonable inference rather than mere suspicion."Jackson v. Davis, 398 So.2d 242, 245 (Ala. 1981). Grady Jr. failed to present substantial evidence indicating that Beatrice exerted undue influence over Grady Sr.

  4. Ward v. Little

    669 So. 2d 836 (Ala. 1995)   Cited 1 times

    McMillian v. Wallis, 567 So.2d 1199, 1205 (Ala. 1990). I find no substantial evidence of "active interference or undue activity" by a beneficiary in procuring the execution of the will, except in the affidavit of Ward. Arrington v. Working Woman's Home, 368 So.2d 851 (Ala. 1979); Jackson v. Davis, 398 So.2d 242 (Ala. 1981); Pruitt v. Pruitt, 343 So.2d 495 (Ala. 1976); Windham v. Pope, 474 So.2d 1075 (Ala. 1985).

  5. Crump v. Moss

    517 So. 2d 609 (Ala. 1987)   Cited 7 times
    Noting that the evidence required "to raise a presumption of undue influence" can be either direct or circumstantial

    However, the evidence must provide at least a reasonable inference of undue activity. Penn v. Jarrett, 447 So.2d 723, 725 (Ala. 1984); Jackson v. Davis, 398 So.2d 242, 245 (Ala. 1981). Mere suspicion is not enough.

  6. Edwards v. Strong

    465 So. 2d 368 (Ala. 1985)   Cited 4 times

    Both argue that evidence of undue influence must be more than a suspicion or speculation that undue influence is present. Jackson v. Davis, 398 So.2d 242, 245 (Ala. 1981). Of course, this is the law, but the question remains whether sufficient evidence was presented here to support the trial court's decree.