IN RE ESTATE OF KITTIE HURLEY JUDY, DECEASED. CLYDE E. JUDY, APPELLANT,
v.
ST. MARY'S CATHOLIC CHURCH OF WASHINGTON, INDIANA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision denying probate of a will, finding that the lower court's factual determination regarding the testatrix's competency and undue influence was supported by the evidence and entitled to a presumption of correctness.
No, the county judge's decision was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. The appellate court found that the county judge, as the trier of fact, was entitled to a presumption of correctness for his findings.
“After taking testimony the county judge denied the petition of probate and concluded that Mrs. Judy was incompetent at the time of the execution of the will and that the petitioner had brought undue influence upon the testatrix.”
This quote establishes the factual findings made by the lower court that led to the denial of probate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClyde E. Judy petitioned to probate the will of his deceased stepmother, Kittie Hurley Judy. The county judge's court denied the petition, finding tha…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Presumption Of Correctness On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Clyde E. Judy, stepson of the deceased, Kittie Hurley Judy, petitioned the county judge’s court of Pinellas County to probate the will of Kittie Hurley Judy dated March 25, 1965. After taking testimony the county judge denied the petition of probate and concluded that Mrs. Judy was incompetent at the time of the execution of the will and that the petitioner had brought undue influence upon the testatrix.
On appeal, the appellant relies primarily on his point that the decision of the county judge is contrary to the weight of evidence.
We have studied the briefs and record in this cause and find that this is primarily a factual dispute. There is conflicting evidence relating to the competency of Mrs. Judy, deceased, at the time she executed her will on March 25, 1965, but the county judge sits as trier of the facts. He heard the witnesses, observed their demeanor, and read the depositions; and since his decision comes here clothed with a presumption of correctness this court cannot disturb the findings of the county judge.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.