The plaintiff challenged a deceased testator's final will on grounds of lack of due execution, lack of knowledge and approval, lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and unjust enrichment arising from prior caregiving services allegedly exchanged for a promised house.
The court admitted the drafting solicitor's affidavit under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, finding necessity and sufficient reliability despite the absence of cross-examination.
On the merits, the court held the will was duly executed, the testator had testamentary capacity and knowledge of its contents, and no undue influence or coercion was proven.
Although the court accepted that the plaintiff and his spouse had provided valuable care services and had been promised the property, it found no basis for a constructive or resulting trust and no evidentiary foundation for quantum meruit damages exceeding the $50,000 bequest already received.
