In a contested estates proceeding, the applicants sought directions under Rule 75.06 concerning the proper party required to propound a 2013 will of the deceased.
The respondent challenged the validity of the will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence and requested that the applicants be required to propound it.
The court held that the applicants had “intermeddled” in the estate by taking substantive steps such as applying for a certificate of appointment and administering assets, which precluded them from renouncing their role.
As the individuals most involved in the preparation and execution of the will, they were required to propound it.
The court also directed a trial of issues regarding testamentary capacity and undue influence while declining to adjudicate negligence and fiduciary duty claims within the directions motion.
