Doll v. Tressler
Doll
Citation
341 Or. App. 363
Court
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided
June 18, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Importance
46%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
No. 549 June 18, 2025 363 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Estate of Wilbert H. Tressler, deceased. Barbi M. DOLL, Appellant, v. Donald Lee TRESSLER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Wilbert H. Tressler, Respondent. Washington County Circuit Court 21PB05510; A180067 Janelle F. Wipper, Judge. Submitted May 20, 2025. Jennifer J. Martin, Kevin O’Connell, and Law Offices of O’Connell Hval & Martin filed the briefs for appellant. Heather Cavanaugh, Julie R. Vacura, and Larkins Vacura Kayser, LLP, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Hellman, Judge, and O’Connor, Judge. ORTEGA, P. J. Affirmed. 364 Doll v. Tressler ORTEGA, P. J. Petitioner Barbi Doll seeks reversal of an opinion and order concluding that decedent Wilbert Tressler lacked testamentary capacity when he executed a will in 2020, which made her the primary beneficiary of his estate and which also concluded that the will was the result of undue influence by petitioner. She seeks reversal of that opinion and order, which invalidated the 2020 will, and the findings and conclusions supporting it. We affirm. Petitioner has not asked this court to try the cause anew on the record under ORAP 5.40(8), and this is not an “exceptional case” warranting such review. ORAP 5.40(8)(c). Accordingly, we are bound by the trial court’s findings of historical fact that are supported by any evidence in the record and review the court’s dispositional conclusions for errors of law. See Williamson v. Zielinski, 326 Or App 648, 649, 532 P3d 1257 (2023). The trial court’s findings of historical fact are sup- ported by evidence in the record and are bolstered by its credibility findings. Those findings provide ample legal sup- port for its dispositional conclusions. We therefore conclude that petitioner has failed to show any basis for reversal of the opinion and order. Affirmed.
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 18, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
Case Name: Doll v. Tressler
Citation: 341 Or. App. 363
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Date: June 18, 2025
Jurisdiction: SA
In this case, Barbi M. Doll appeals a decision regarding the estate of Wilbert H. Tressler, which concluded that Tressler lacked testamentary capacity when he executed a will in 2020. The court found that the will, which named Doll as the primary beneficiary, was the result of undue influence exerted by her.
Key Legal Issues
- Testamentary Capacity: Did Wilbert Tressler possess the mental capacity to create a valid will?
- Undue Influence: Was the will influenced by Barbi Doll in a manner that compromised Tressler's free will?
Court's Decision
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the findings regarding Tressler's lack of testamentary capacity and the undue influence exerted by Doll were supported by sufficient evidence. The court noted that Doll did not request a new trial under ORAP 5.40(8), which limited the scope of review.
Legal Reasoning
The court emphasized that it is bound by the trial court's findings of historical fact when supported by evidence in the record. The trial court's credibility assessments were crucial in determining the outcome. The court stated:
"Petitioner has not asked this court to try the cause anew on the record under ORAP 5.40(8), and this is not an 'exceptional case' warranting such review."
This highlights the importance of procedural adherence in appellate cases, particularly in matters involving estate law.
Key Holdings
- The trial court's findings regarding Tressler's lack of testamentary capacity were upheld.
- The will executed in 2020 was deemed invalid due to undue influence by Barbi Doll.
- The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision without finding errors in law.
Precedents and Citations
- Williamson v. Zielinski, 326 Or App 648, 649, 532 P3d 1257 (2023): This case was cited regarding the standards for reviewing trial court findings and conclusions.
Practical Implications
This case underscores the critical importance of testamentary capacity and the potential for undue influence in will contests. Legal practitioners should note the following:
- Documentation: Ensure that clients have clear documentation of their mental capacity when executing wills.
- Witness Testimony: The credibility of witnesses can significantly impact the outcome of estate disputes.
- Procedural Compliance: Adhering to procedural rules is vital for preserving rights on appeal.
In conclusion, Doll v. Tressler serves as a pivotal case in understanding the dynamics of will validity in Oregon, particularly in relation to testamentary capacity and undue influence. Legal professionals should be vigilant in these areas to protect their clients' interests in estate planning and litigation.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 18, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools