Candies v. Hulsey

In November of 1998, Ruby Pinion suffered a stroke and, in March of the following year, she fell and was hospitalized. From that time until her death in March of 2001, she lived either in a nursing home or in a hospital facility. In the past, Ms. Pinion had executed documents which were identified as her will. In June of 1999, Ms. Pinion, who was then 78 years old, signed another document by which she rescinded an existing power of attorney and named her niece, Linda Candies Propounder, as medical guardian. In addition, the instrument stated that “as to my personal belongings, such as household furnishings and all personal belongings, I leave to Propounder solely to disperse as she deems proper.” The document was executed in the nursing home where Ms. Pinion was then residing, and was witnessed by three individuals and notarized. It also bore Propounder’s signature, expressing her acceptance of responsibility for her aunt’s medical decisions, and acknowledging that she would disperse Ms. Pinion’s personal effects in accordance with her judgment. After Ms. Pinion died, Propounder sought to probate the document as a will. The decedent’s sister, Lorraine Hulsey Caveator, filed a caveat, challenging the validity of the instrument as a will. The probate court found in favor of Propounder. On appeal, the superior court heard the case without a jury, and ruled that the writing was not a valid will. Propounder appeals from that order of the superior court.

1. Propounder urges that the superior court misconstrued the instrument. According to her, the language used in the document and the circumstances surrounding its execution show that it was intended to be Ms.will.