Court Opinion

ID: 9849984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:50:25.598008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:29.938670
License: Public Domain

Harrison, J.,
dissenting.
I agree with the contention of the appellant that Halbleib’s defense of forgery (the signature on the will was not signed by his wife) was inconsistent with his defense of undue influence (the signature on the will was that of his wife, but she was coerced or unduly influenced to sign). Further, and assuming but not agreeing that Halbleib could pursue, present evidence and have the jury instructed on both theories at the same time, I find the evidence insufficient to establish either forgery or undue influence. I would therefore reverse and enter final judgment for Wilroy.