Title: Ward v. Little
Citation: 669 So. 2d 836
Docket Number: 1931744
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: September 1, 1995

669 So. 2d 836 (1995)
Erskin D. WARD, Jr.
v.
Lynda Johnson LITTLE, et al.
1931744.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 1, 1995.
Rehearing Denied November 3, 1995.
*837 Lamar C. Johnson and Wyman O. Gilmore, Jr. of Gilmore Law Office, Grove Hill, for Erskin D. Ward, Jr.
N.S. Hare, Jr. of Hare and Hare, Monroeville, guardian ad litem for Laura Frye, a minor.
J. Milton Coxwell, Jr. of Coxwell and Coxwell, Monroeville, for Lynda Johnson Little.
COOK, Justice.
Erskin D. Ward, Jr., appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of Lynda Johnson Little and Laura Frye in this will contest wherein Mr. Ward contends that the testatrix, Lillie W. Carter, executed her will while under undue influence of the principal beneficiary of the will, Lynda Little, and the parents of the other beneficiary Laura Frye, Mary and James Frye.
Lillie Carter, a widow with no children, died on October 17, 1991. She had executed her last will and testament on July 26, 1991, leaving her estate to Lynda Johnson Little as principal beneficiary and Laura Frye as the other beneficiary. Erskin Ward, Carter's nephew, contested the will, contending that it was executed while Carter was under the undue influence of Lynda Little and the Fryes and contending that Carter lacked the testamentary capacity at the time to execute a new will. The trial court entered a summary judgment, rejecting both claims. Ward appeals the judgment insofar as it relates to the claim of undue influence.
Johnson and Frye's summary judgment motion was properly supported. In order to rebut that properly supported motion, Ward had to offer substantial evidence that Little and Frye were not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Carruth v. Pittway Corp., 643 So. 2d 1340, 1342 (Ala. 1994). With regard to undue influence, we have stated:
Whitfield v. Burttram, 471 So. 2d 401, 404 (Ala.1985). Therefore, in order to defeat the motion for summary judgment, Ward had to offer substantial evidence of a confidential relationship between Little and Carter; substantial evidence that Little was a favored beneficiary; substantial evidence that Little's influence was dominant in the relationship; and substantial evidence that undue activity on the part of Little resulted in Carter's execution of the will in question. The new will executed by Carter named Little as the principal beneficiary and, although Little was not related to Carter, Carter had referred to her as the child "we raised." Thus, Ward did offer substantial evidence that Little was a favored beneficiary and that Little had a confidential relationship with Carter.
Ward offered his own affidavit, as well as deposition testimony of Carter's doctor; both of them testified that Carter had been in deteriorating health and that she was easily influenced. Ward stated in his affidavit, in pertinent part:
C.R. at 84-85. Ward also offered the affidavit of Betty C. Lee, who stated as follows:
C.R. at 166. In further support, Ward offered the affidavit of Willie Ward:
C.R. at 169.
Little had been visiting 77-year-old Lillie Carter for six days when Little drove Carter to an attorney's office, where Carter executed a new will. While her visit lasted less than a week, the evidence offered was conflicting as to whether Lillie Carter was, in fact, unduly influenced by Little and the Fryes to change her will.
Laura Frye contends that her bequest was not due to undue influence and, therefore, that, the summary judgment was appropriate as to her. We disagree.
Shelton v. Gordon, 252 Ala. 187, 40 So. 2d 95, 99 (Ala.1949).
Lewis v. Martin, 210 Ala. 401, 98 So. 635, 647 (1923).
Ward offered substantial evidence tending to show that Lillie Carter was unduly influenced to execute a will leaving her estate to Little and Frye. Thus, the proponents of the will were not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law; the summary judgment was inappropriate.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MADDOX, SHORES, and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.
HOUSTON, J., concurs specially.
HOUSTON, Justice (concurring specially).
I find no motion to strike the affidavit of Erskin D. Ward, Jr., and no objection based on the contention that that affidavit violates Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-163. 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).