01-2167 In Re: the Estate of Paul R. Sharpley Sr. v. Paul R. Sharpley, III

Listen to this article

Accordingly, we affirm the conclusion of the trial court that plaintiff had failed to meet the clear and convincing burden of proof required to establish his contentions of undue influence on the part of the grandson and that ordered the will admitted to probate.

“We will not reverse a trial court’s discretionary determination if the record reflects that discretion was truly exercised; in fact, we will look for reasons to sustain the decision. Id. The trial court did not find waiver and did not err in proceeding immediately to the bench trial after holding that a jury trial was not proper. It noted that the jury had not yet been impaneled and therefore valuable citizen and judicial resources had not been squandered. Upon review, we determine no reason to upset the trial court’s discretionary decision on waiver.”

And, even though the trial judge had conducted settlement talks with the parties while everyone still thought the matter would be tried to a jury, we reject plaintiff’s contention that the judge should have recused herself and not proceeded immediately with a bench trial.

“Here we do not have a mandatory recusal situation. Thus, the test is a subjective one committed to the judgment of the trial court. Judge Becker determined that her involvement in the settlement negotiations and her limited involvement in the prior guardianship proceeding did not create a need for self-disqualification. We see nothing in the record that contradicts Judge Becker’s determination that she could be objective.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist II, Waukesha County, Becker, J., Anderson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Daniel W. Stevens, Menomonee Falls; Nicholas C. Zales, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Leonard G. Adent, Waukesha