Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1589 September Term, 2002 ___________________________________

RITA HOLDEN, et al.

v. WAYNE BLEVINS, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM KYLE BLEVINS, et al.

___________________________________ Murphy, C.J., Eyler, Deborah S., Karwacki, Robert L., (Retired, specially assigned), JJ. ____________________________________ Opinion by Murphy, C.J. ____________________________________ Filed: December 10, 2003

The parties to this appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County are the brothers and sisters of William Kyle Blevins, who died on April 18, 2001.1 A jury (Hon. W. Kennedy

Boone, III, presiding) was asked to answer three questions that had been certified by the Orphans' Court after appellants argued that the decedent's March 27, 2001 will should not be admitted to probate. As a result of the jury's answers, Judge Boone entered

a judgment in favor of Lee Blevins, appellee, who had argued that the March 27, 2001 will was valid. Appellants present two

questions for our review,2 which we rephrase into a single question: Did the trial court err in denying appellants' motion for a new trial? For the reasons that follow, we shall remand this case so that Judge Boone can reconsider his denial of appellants' motion for new trial.

1

The appellants are Archie Blevins, Wayne Blevins, Rita Holden and Clara Stouffer.

Appellants' first "question" is: Is the appellee willing to produce authenticating documentation, sufficient to prove to this Court that he is in fact the recipient of the high military honors claimed [at trial]: Bronze Star, Silver Star, two Purple Hearts, upon proof of which, appellants will be happy to dismiss the appeal, in the absence of which, appellants present only one narrowly delineated and circumscribed question for appellate review? Appellant's "second" question is: Does perjury of Appellee, under the unique circumstances of this case, entitle Appellants to a new trial? All briefs should include "[a] statement of the questions presented, separately numbered, indicating the legal propositions involved and the questions of fact at issue. . ." Md. Rule 8504(a)(3)(emphasis added). Appellants' first question contains no legal propositions whatsoever.

2

Background William Kyle Blevins died on April 18, 2001, leaving what appeared to be a validly executed will.3 The will, signed March

27, 2001, was a "fill-in-the-blank" document that (1) identified William's five siblings (Archie, Clara, Rita, Wayne, and Lee), (2) expressly disinherited Archie, (3) left $2,500 each to Clara, Rita, and Wayne, and (4) left the residuary estate to Lee. When appellants argued to the Orphans' Court that the March 27, 2001 will should not be admitted to probate, that court certified the following questions to the circuit court: (1) Was William Kyle Blevins competent to make a will on March 27, 2001?; (2) If William Kyle Blevins was competent to make a will on March 27, 2001, was he subjected to undue influence in making that will?; and (3) Is the document dated March 27, 2001, the Last Will and Testament of William Kyle Blevins? After a two day

trial in July of 2002, the jury answered "Yes" to question one, "No" to question two, and "Yes" to question three. During the course of the trial, appellee testified that he had served in the U.S. Army for three years and had been awarded two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star.
3

Appellants

For a will to be valid in Maryland it "shall be (1) in writing, (2) signed by the testator, or by some other person for him, in his presence and by his express direction, and (3) attested and signed by two or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator." Md. Code Ann. Est & Trusts

Download Holden v. Blevins.pdf

Maryland Law