Court Opinion

ID: 9770297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:57:58.96769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:16.428603
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
On motion for rehearing, appellants claim this court erred in not addressing their allegations that a fiduciary relationship existed between appellants and appellee Scott. We adhere to our prior decision that this issue is not properly reached in an in limine proceeding on the question of interest to contest the will. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that appellee Scott was the attorney for appellants in matters relating to testatrix’s will. Appellants’ own testimony was that they were suspicious of appellee, intimidated by appellee, and fearful of appellee from the time they first read the will. Appellants then claim here that they relied on appellee for legal advice and he breached his duty to them by not explaining their rights in connection with the will. The record does not support appellants’ claim that appellee owed them any duty or that a fiduciary relationship existed between appellants and appellee.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled.