## Facts

- Charles E. Roblin and his wife had two children: Charles D. Roblin (son) and Ruth E. Shantz (daughter).
- Roblin became estranged from his wife in part due to resentment over her repeated financial support of the son.
- After a stroke, Roblin lived in a nursing home; Ruth regularly visited and assisted with his care.
- Shortly before her death, Roblin’s wife executed a will leaving her probate estate equally to both children, but substantial jointly held property passed to the son by survivorship, resulting in the son receiving nearly all value associated with her death.
- Soon after the wife’s death, Ruth told her father that the wife had left “everything” to the son except a diamond ring.
- Roblin, upset, summoned an attorney and executed a will leaving $1 to the son and the residue to Ruth, naming Ruth executrix.
- After Roblin’s death, Ruth offered the will for probate; the son contested, alleging the will was procured by Ruth’s fraud.

## Issues

1. Whether the daughter’s statement about the wife’s disposition of property constituted fraud that caused the testator to execute the challenged will, requiring invalidation.
2. Whether the contestant proved each required element of fraud, including knowledge of falsity and intent to deceive, as well as actual reliance and causation.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the decree dismissing the will contest and admitting the will to probate.
- The court held the contestant failed to prove fraud sufficient to invalidate the will.
- The court treated the challenged statement as, at most, an exaggeration or misunderstanding consistent with the practical economic effect of the wife’s property passing largely to the son.
- The record did not establish that Ruth knew her statement was false or made it with intent to deceive, and the testator’s pre-existing hostility toward the son supported the will’s disposition independent of any alleged misrepresentation.

## Legal Principles

- Fraud sufficient to invalidate a will requires proof that statements were: (1) false, (2) known to be false by the speaker, (3) material, (4) made with intent to deceive the testator, (5) actually deceptive, and (6) causative of the testamentary act through reliance.
- A duly executed will is presumed valid; the contestant bears the burden to prove fraud by satisfactory evidence.
- An inaccurate or overstated description of who “received everything” may be insufficient absent proof of scienter and intent to deceive, particularly where the statement aligns with the overall economic result.
- Evidence that the testator already harbored strong negative feelings toward a disfavored heir may weaken a claim that a later will was produced by fraud rather than the testator’s own settled views.

## Conclusion

The court upheld probate because the son did not prove all elements of fraud in procurement; the daughter’s statement did not establish knowing falsity or intent to deceive, and the will’s terms were consistent with the testator’s prior resentment toward the son.


In re Roblin’s Estate, 210 Or. 371, 311 P.2d 459 (Or. 1957)