Court Opinion

ID: 9728212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:02:07.251128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:46.896864
License: Public Domain

HARTNETT, Justice,
concurring:
I agree with the majority that this matter must be reversed and remanded because the Court of Chancery incorrectly placed the burden of persuasion on the objector to the will, notwithstanding that the Testatrix’s son drafted the will and was its principal beneficiary. I disagree, however, with the majority’s imposition of certain evidentiary burdens on the objector.
*789As many cases state, if the objector to a will makes a showing that the will was drafted by a substantial beneficiary under the will, the burden of persuasion to show lack of undue influence shifts to the proponent of the will. Annotation: 13 A.L.R.3d 381 § 2 1997 Supplement; Looney v. Estate of Wade, 310 Ark. 708, 839 S.W.2d 531 (1992); Estate of Reiland, 292 Minn. 460, 194 N.W.2d 289 (1972), both cited by the majority; and Swenson v. Wintercorn, 92 Ill.App.2d 88, 234 N.E.2d 91 (1968).
I believe this rule is the majority rule and it is persuasive. In my opinion, this Court should follow it without imposing any additional evidentiary burdens on the objector.