✩ Jones v. Sperau - Undue Influence Generally a Jury Question
Posted: May 8th, 2002 by Gaslowitz Frankel LLCOur client filed a caveat to the will of her uncle, alleging undue influence by the sole beneficiary of the will, a man whom her uncle had met in an internet chat room two months before he executed the new will and five months before he died. We presented evidence of the uncle’s previously expressed intent to leave his estate to his niece, and we showed the trial court that the new internet friend had exerted undue influence on the uncle by administering pain medication to the uncle and by adding his name to the uncle’s investment account the day before he died. The jury found this evidence sufficient to establish undue influence, and the new internet friend appealed, arguing that there was no direct evidence of undue influence and that the jury could not rely on such circumstantial evidence. The Georgia Supreme Court rejected1 the internet friend’s argument, ruling that the issue of undue influence is generally a fact question for the jury, and the jury may rely on reasonable circumstantial evidence to reach its verdict.
1 275 Ga. 213, 563 S.E.2d 863 (2002)
| Related News | Caveat, Civil Appeals, Firm News, Representative Cases, Undue Influence, Will Disputes, Will and Estate Disputes |
Photograph by 
