Court Opinion

ID: 9852770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:36:25.471564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:34.310308
License: Public Domain

Hill, Justice,
dissenting.
Although I concur in the "reasonable diligence” test, I respectfully dissent from the judgment affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Opponents. In my view, the Opponents did not carry the burden on movants of showing that Propounder did not exercise "reasonable diligence.” Propounder’s attorney requested information from Anderson’s attorney as to the identity of any heirs-at-law. Having failed to furnish the requested information, Anderson in effect contends here that Propounder should have requested such information from *612testatrix’s neighbors and medical personnel. However, Anderson does not show on this record that testatrix’s neighbors or medical personnel knew that Anderson was related to testatrix.
By affidavit, Anderson states that testatrix spent the last six months of her life in a nursing home where she received care and attention from Anderson. However, Anderson does not show that Propounder had knowledge of the nursing home and does not show that inquiry at the nursing home would have shown Anderson or anyone else to be listed or known as a relative of testatrix.
In my view it cannot be said that there were no genuine issues as to any material facts and that movants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. I therefore respectfully dissent.