any changes regarding the disposition of the farms, and that if
Ridenour would have mentioned it, Weaner would have made the changes in the
second codicil. (Weaner Depo. at 59-60). Following the meeting between
Ridenour and Weaner, a second codicil was prepared and executed. The second
codicil did not mention the farms.
Case No. 4-13-01
{¶30} Sinn testified in her deposition that she did not ask Ridenour what he
finally decided to do with his farms and she did not want to know because she did
not want to be further involved. (Sinn Depo. at 75). Appellants testified in their
depositions that they similarly did not ask Ridenour if he made the changes
regarding who would receive the farms. (Barnes Depo. at 37). Max Tappan,
Ridenour's cousin, submitted an affidavit that stated Ridenour told Tappan that
Ridenour had decided not to change his will despite the conversation with the
appellants. (Tappan Aff.).
{¶31} Thus ultimately the evidence established that Ridenour originally
desired to give his farms to the Conkeys and put that desire in his will, where it
remained despite Ridenour's execution of two codicils. Appellants were aware of
Ridenour's desire to leave the farms to the Conkeys as they had actually thought
that it was already a "done deal." After learning that the farms were to pass via
Ridenour's will, only one conversation occurred that suggested Ridenour
considered altering his will, and that conversation occurred over a ten minute
period. Appellants now argue on appeal that somehow the absence of a change in
Ridenour's will is evidence of undue influence by the appellees.
{¶32} There is nothing in the record to suggest that Sinn either influenced
or attempted to influence Ridenour toward giving his two farms to the Conkeys.
To the contrary, the only evidence in the record is that Sinn initially advised
Case No. 4-13-01
against Ridenour leaving his farms to the Conkeys, instead advising that he give
them to his sister Ruth. When Sinn made this statement to Ridenour, Ridenour
told Sinn that Ray was like a son to Ridenour. (Sinn Depo. at 48). Ridenour
continued by saying "isn't it mine, can't I do with it what I want?" (Id. at 49).
{¶33} Similarly, the record merely established Sinn's presence at the
meetings with Ridenour's attorney. While Sinn took notes that were occasionally
used, there was no indication that she ever influenced Ridenour or attempted to do
anything that would go against his wishes. In fact, attorney Weaner testified that
he never doubted Ridenour's capacity, that in his opinion there was no undue
influence, and that it was not uncommon for someone to bring in a confidant when
discussing a will. (Weaner Depo. at 44-45, 63, 78). Weaner's legal assistant
Susan Leibold submitted an affidavit stating that Sinn only acted in a supportive
role and that she did not attempt to influence Ridenour in any manner. (Leibold
Aff.). Leibold also averred that Ridenour appeared to understand the will he was
signing and that Ridenour stated he was