MaryBeth Printz v. Charles F. Printz, Jr.

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment against MaryBeth Printz in her challenge to her parents’ wills. The Court held that the circumstantial evidence did not establish undue influence because it was consistent with explanations other than coercion, and declined to adopt a presumption of undue influence based on a beneficiary’s participation in will preparation. The Court also affirmed dismissal of the related tortious-interference-with-testamentary-bequest claim.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was proper because the plaintiff could not establish undue influence through circumstantial evidence where the established facts were consistent with theories other than undue influence.
2. Summary judgment was proper on the tortious-interference claim because, under the facts of this case, the claim was premised entirely on the alleged undue influence, which the plaintiff could not prove as a matter of law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on MaryBeth Printz's undue-influence claim when her evidence was circumstantial.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on the claim for tortious interference with a testamentary bequest when that claim was premised on the alleged undue influence.

Disposition

affirmed