MAVIS SCOTT AND EVA JUDELLE SMITH v. EDITH ROBINA DOBSON; BERNIE E. WRIGHT; AND CLARA B. WRIGHT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
January 22, 1999; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO. 1997-CA-003099-MR
MAVIS SCOTT AND
EVA JUDELLE SMITH
APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM GREEN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE W. M. HALL, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 96-CI-00048
v.
EDITH ROBINA DOBSON;
BERNIE E. WRIGHT; AND
CLARA B. WRIGHT
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
**
BEFORE:
**
**
**
**
GUDGEL, CHIEF JUDGE; GUIDUGLI AND MILLER, JUDGES.
MILLER, JUDGE: Mavis Scott and Eva Judelle Smith bring this
appeal from a November 5, 1997 judgment of the Green Circuit
Court.
We affirm.
The facts are these: In July 1977, Ira Wright died testate.
His will was lawfully probated and recorded.
The will stated in
pertinent part as follows:
ITEM II.
As to the remainder of my
property, both personal and real, I hereby
Will to my wife, Clara Wright, for her
lifetime. If she deems it necessary or
desirable to sell any of the property, either
personal or real, I hereby empower her to
sell same, and she shall have the full power
and authority to make a fee simple title to
said real estate.
By deed dated July 9, 1984, Clara gifted the above real
estate in Green County, Kentucky, to her son/appellee, Bernie E.
Wright.
A dispute arose between appellants, who are the
daughters of Ira and Clara, and the appellees concerning the
gift.
Appellants contended that the gift violated the terms of
Ira's will.
Subsequently, Clara entered into another deed dated
April 4, 1996, and again conveyed the same property to her son.
The deed recited that the consideration for said conveyance was
that Bernie would take care of Clara during her lifetime.
Appellees made a motion to dismiss the action, and the circuit
court granted the motion on November 5, 1997.
The court concluded that:
The Will in question specifically gave the
Defendant, Clara B. Wright, the authority to
sell said property if she desired and did not
place any particular price on said
conveyance. The Defendant, Clara B. Wright,
testified to the fact that said property was
conveyed to her son, Bernie E. Wright, for
the consideration of said Defendant having
stayed and taken care of his mother and the
Defendant, Clara B. Wright, presented a
Contract to that effect. Consequently, after
hearing all the Plaintiffs' evidence,
Defendant's Motion for a directed verdict
must be sustained and this action is hereby
dismissed with prejudice at the cost of the
Plaintiffs.
This appeal followed.
Appellants contend that the circuit court committed
reversible error by entering directed verdict.
-2-
Directed verdict
is proper if, viewing the evidence most favorably to the
nonmoving party, reasonable minds could only conclude that the
moving party was entitled to judgment.
See Lee v. Tucker, Ky.,
365 S.W.2d 849 (1963). The facts are uncontroverted that Clara
deeded the property to Bernie in consideration of his promise to
provide care for her.
We believe that such constitutes
sufficient consideration to support the conveyance.
Bowen, 255 Ky. 802, 75 S.W.2d 513 (1934).
See Combs v.
Moreover, we are of
the opinion that the conveyance, which was supported by
sufficient and valuable consideration, did not violate the terms
of Ira's will.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Green
Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:
James T. Kelley
Elizabethtown, KY
Danny Butler
Greensburg, KY
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
