## Facts

- Mack L. Reed died testate in 1973 at age 74 in Conecuh County, Alabama. He never married and lived on land he owned with his sisters Lula Nannie Ella Reed and Bertha Reed.
- Mack’s neighbors were Mary Shipp and her husband, Cary Shipp. The evidence described a long, intimate relationship between Mack and Mary over many years.
- Mary had three children—Edna, Elsie, and Elvis Shipp (the Shipp children). Mack spent substantial time with them and referred to them as his children.
- In 1964, Mack executed a will that (1) placed his real property in trust with Mary as trustee for the Shipp children, (2) left household furnishings to Lula and Bertha, and (3) left the residuary estate to the Shipp children.
- In 1970, after Mack had sold part of his land and after Bertha’s death, Mack executed a codicil that (1) reallocated the remaining real property among the three Shipp children, (2) left the household furnishings to Lula, and (3) left the residue to Elvis.
- Evidence indicated that Mary arranged for the lawyer who prepared the codicil. The contestants also offered proof that Mack had suffered an extended illness shortly before the codicil and that Mary promptly took him to execute it once he recovered.
- After Mack’s death, Lula and another sister, Fannie Reed Simmons, contested the will and codicil, claiming undue influence by Mary in procuring the instruments for the benefit of Mary and the Shipp children.
- At trial, undue influence was the only contested ground. After the contestants presented their evidence, the trial court directed a verdict for the proponents (Mary and the Shipp children), ruling that the contestants had not produced sufficient evidence of “undue activity” in procuring the will or codicil.

## Issues

1. Whether the contestants produced enough evidence of undue influence—particularly undue activity by a favored beneficiary in procuring the will or codicil—to require submission of the case to the jury.
2. Whether the trial court properly directed a verdict for the proponents admitting the will and codicil to probate.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the directed verdict for the proponents.
- The court accepted that the contestants’ evidence could support findings of (a) a confidential relationship between Mack and Mary and (b) favored beneficiary status for Mary and/or the Shipp children under the will and codicil.
- Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the contestants, the court held the record did not supply sufficient evidence that Mary (or someone acting for her) engaged in undue activity in and about the procurement of the will or codicil.
- Because the contestants failed to present evidence on an essential element required to raise a presumption or jury question of undue influence, the trial court did not err by removing the case from the jury and directing a verdict.

## Legal Principles

- In an Alabama will contest, a prima facie case of undue influence requires proof of: (1) a confidential relationship between the testator and a favored beneficiary, (2) favored beneficiary status under the challenged instrument, and (3) undue activity by the beneficiary (or a person acting for the beneficiary) in and about the procurement of the will or codicil.
- Proof of opportunity, motive, close association, or an intimate relationship—without proof of active interference in preparing or executing the testamentary instrument—does not by itself establish undue influence.
- A beneficiary’s involvement such as arranging contact with an attorney or being present around the time of execution, without additional proof showing that the beneficiary dominated or actively controlled the testamentary act, may be insufficient to show the required “undue activity.”
- A directed verdict is proper when, after the nonmovant’s evidence is taken as true with all reasonable inferences, there remains no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find an essential element of the claim.

## Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed probate of Mack L. Reed’s will and codicil because, although the contestants presented evidence supporting a confidential relationship and a substantial benefit to Mary Shipp and the Shipp children, they did not present sufficient evidence that Mary engaged in undue activity in procuring the will or codicil; without that element, the trial court properly directed a verdict for the proponents.


Reed v. Shipp, 308 So. 2d 705, 293 Ala. 632 (1975)