## Facts

- William K. O’Brien made a will using a video recording on September 14, 1983.
- O’Brien executed a codicil to the will on September 30, 1983.
- The will and codicil disinherited Frances Trautwein.
- The video depicts O’Brien as very ill, suffering the aftereffects of multiple strokes, and nearing death.
- The video also indicates O’Brien was unable to understand what was occurring and did not know the extent of his assets.
- The attorney conducting the will-execution process asked O’Brien leading questions and dictated each step of the process.
- Trautwein filed a will contest against the O’Brien estate, asserting that O’Brien lacked testamentary capacity when the will and codicil were made.
- Trautwein also alleged undue influence by the attorney and other family members during the drafting and execution of the September 1983 will and codicil.
- At trial, the estate moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court granted a directed verdict for the estate.
- Trautwein appealed from the directed verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence most favorably to Trautwein, there was sufficient evidence of lack of testamentary capacity to submit the will contest to the jury rather than enter a directed verdict for the estate.
2. Whether, viewing the evidence most favorably to Trautwein, there was sufficient evidence of undue influence by the drafting attorney and/or family members to submit the claim to the jury rather than enter a directed verdict for the estate.
3. Whether the trial court properly applied the directed-verdict standard in taking the case from the jury in a will contest based on a videotaped execution and related testimony.

## Decision

- The trial court entered a directed verdict in favor of the O’Brien estate on Trautwein’s will-contest claims.
- Trautwein appealed the directed verdict in the unpublished decision reported at 1989 WL 2149.
- The publicly available case summaries identify the appeal and the nature of the claims (capacity and undue influence), but do not provide the full appellate disposition or the court’s complete reasoning.

## Legal Principles

- A will contest may be based on claims that the testator lacked testamentary capacity at the time of execution and/or that the instrument resulted from undue influence.
- Videotaped execution evidence can be relevant to capacity and influence because it may show the testator’s apparent comprehension, responsiveness, and susceptibility at the time the instrument was made.
- A directed verdict removes the case from the jury; it is appropriate only when, after construing the evidence most strongly for the nonmoving party, reasonable factfinders could reach only one result.
- In a will contest decided on a directed-verdict motion, the central question is whether the contestant’s evidence is legally sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find for the contestant on the asserted ground(s).

## Conclusion

*Trautwein v. O’Brien* concerns a will contest arising from a videotaped September 1983 will and a later codicil that disinherited Frances Trautwein; she alleged William K. O’Brien lacked testamentary capacity and was subject to undue influence by the drafting attorney and family members, but the trial court granted a directed verdict for the estate and Trautwein appealed, placing at issue whether her evidence was sufficient to reach a jury under the directed-verdict standard.


Trautwein v. O'Brien, 1989 WL 2149 (1989)