Opinion ID: 2212708
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: will of 1972

Text: Was the court within its jurisdiction in ordering the guardian to investigate the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will of 1972? The petitioner and the guardian are in substantial agreement that the court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the guardians [t]o    preserve such testimony as may be pertinent with regard to the purported Last Will and Testament of said Lillian Schober executed some time in 1972 and to proceed in whatever manner deemed appropriate relative to ascertaining whether Lillian Schober may not have been mentally competent to make a testamentary disposition or her property by Will during 1972. The petitioner and the guardian's position is that a will is ambulatory and judicial precedent establishes that a court does not have authority to entertain a suit to establish or annul a will. See, 57 Am.Jur., Wills, § 765. For example, until death activates the will, the proper parties to the suit would not even be ascertainable. Nothing herein stated should be interpreted as tending to indicate that the parties in their individual capacity do not have the authority under Rule 27, Rules of Civil Procedure, to perpetuate testimony relative to the execution of the will. It must be clear, however, that the right is to be exercised in their individual capacity and not at the expense of the ward's assets.