## Facts

- Harold Carlin and Marie Geissinger (also identified in the caption as Fentress) married earlier in life.
- In 1935, Geissinger filed for divorce, but the divorce petition was dismissed without either party’s knowledge.
- Believing the divorce had been granted, Carlin and Geissinger each later married other people.
- In November 1974, Carlin executed a will that described Geissinger as his “dear friend” and named her as his sole beneficiary.
- In February 1975, Carlin was adjudicated mentally incompetent.
- Carlin died in 1978. His later wife (from the subsequent marriage) died before he did.
- Carlin’s sister, Marie Holmes, and his brothers, Bernarr Neff and Ralph Neff (the siblings), filed a will contest after the will was admitted to probate.
- The siblings alleged that Carlin lacked testamentary capacity when he executed the 1974 will and that Geissinger procured the will through undue influence.
- The siblings also claimed they were Carlin’s rightful heirs, asserting that Carlin had been divorced from Geissinger for more than 50 years.
- The Probate Court of Franklin County, Ohio granted Geissinger’s motion for summary judgment, and the siblings appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the probate court properly granted summary judgment on the siblings’ claim that Carlin lacked testamentary capacity when he executed the November 1974 will.
2. Whether the probate court properly granted summary judgment on the siblings’ claim that Geissinger exerted undue influence over Carlin in connection with the 1974 will.
3. Whether the siblings’ heirship theory based on the parties’ long-standing belief that they were divorced created a triable issue affecting the will’s validity or Geissinger’s ability to take under the will.

## Decision

- The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the Probate Court of Franklin County’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Geissinger (Fentress).
- The court allowed the will naming Geissinger as sole beneficiary to stand against the contestants’ capacity, undue influence, and heirship challenges.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Testamentary capacity is determined as of the time the will is executed; a later adjudication of incompetency does not, by itself, prove incapacity at execution.
- A will contest based on undue influence requires evidence of more than opportunity, suspicion, or a close relationship; the contestants must produce evidence that wrongful influence was actually exerted and caused the challenged testamentary disposition.
- A dispute about who would inherit if there were no will does not invalidate an otherwise effective will; the contestants must show a recognized basis to set aside the will or the gift under it.

## Conclusion

In *Holmes v. Fentress*, Carlin’s siblings appealed after the Franklin County Probate Court entered summary judgment for Marie Geissinger/Fentress in a will contest challenging a 1974 will that left everything to her; the appellate court affirmed, concluding the record did not raise a triable issue on testamentary capacity, undue influence, or the siblings’ heirship theory tied to the parties’ mistaken belief that a 1935 divorce had been finalized.


Holmes v. Fentress, 1980 WL 353651 (1980)