Jury found decedent’s 2012 holographic will to be invalid – Verdict for Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs alleged that a self-proving will dated Oct. 7, 2004, was the last true will and testament of the decedent. That will divided the decedent’s estate fairly equally between her three children, Carroll Mauck (defendant) and Roxie Lutz and Bobbie Holler (plaintiffs). The 2004 will also made a provision for Lutz’s son to receive certain land adjoining his existing farming operation.

Defendant alleged that a holographic will dated Oct. 19, 2012, made when the decedent was 95, trumped the 2004 will and was the her last true will and testament. The 2012 will gave the vast majority of decedent’s estate to the defendant. The parties agreed that the 2004 will was valid IF the 2012 will was not valid.

At issue was 1) whether the 2012 writing was wholly in the decedent’s handwriting and signed by the decedent, and 2) whether the decedent had testamentary capacity if she wrote the 2012 will. The parties presented dramatically conflicting evidence on both of these issues; defendant claimed it was his mother’s handwriting and that his mother was perfectly competent. Plaintiffs presented testimony that it was not in her handwriting and that she was not competent and, in fact, did not even know who her daughter Bobbie was as of Oct. 19, 2012, and thought people on the television were talking to her.

The jury agreed with the plaintiffs and found that the 2012 writing was not a valid will. It is not known whether the jury reached this conclusion because it found that the 2012 writing was not in the decedent’s handwriting or was not signed by her (as required by statute to be valid), whether decedent lacked capacity, or both.

Evidence that likely swayed the jury included that 1) On Sept. 25, 2012, defendant, upon learning that the plaintiff Mitchell Lutz was to receive nine acres under the will, proclaimed in the presence of three witnesses that “Mitch will never get that land!” The 2012 holographic will gave the nine acres to Carroll. 2) Dr. Cardwell diagnosed the decedent with dementia on March 12, 2012, and testified that it continually progressed until her death on July 2, 2013. 3) Plaintiff introduced into evidence a signature the decedent made the same day she supposedly signed the 2012 will, and argued that they were very dissimilar. 4) There was dramatically conflicting testimony as to whether the decedent had the mental capacity to make a will as of Oct. 19, 2012. Plaintiffs stressed in closing that defendant had the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence on this issue.

[14-T-031]

Type of action: Will contest
Name of case: Lutz, et al. v. Mauck
Court: Shenandoah County Circuit Court
Case no.: CL13-224
Tried before: Jury
Judge: Dennis Hupp
Date: Feb. 28, 2014
Verdict or settlement: Verdict
Amount: Jury found that a holographic will dated Oct. 19, 2012, was not valid
Attorney for plaintiffs: Brian K. Brake, Harrisonburg
Attorneys for defendant: Kevin Rose and Rachel Logan, Harrisonburg
Plaintiff’s experts: Dr. Elisabeth Cardwell, decedent’s treating physician