Laura Nelson v. Karen Lee Nelson, Personally and as of the Estate of Jerold Charles Nelson

── Laura Nelson v. Karen Lee Nelson, Personally and as of the Estate of Jerold Charles Nelson ── Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky Date: May 15, 2026 Author: L. Jones Category: General RENDERED: MAY 15, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-0622-MR LAURA NELSON; JOHN NELSON; AND LILLIAN LISA MICHELLE NELSON HILES APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM PENDLETON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JAY DELANEY, JUDGE ACTION NO. 22-CI-00023 KAREN LEE NELSON, PERSONALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JEROLD CHARLES NELSON APPELLEE OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: COMBS, L. JONES, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES. JONES, L., JUDGE: Laura Nelson (Laura), John Nelson (John), and Lillian Lisa Michelle Nelson Hiles (Lisa) bring this appeal from a March 5, 2024 Order of the Pendleton Circuit Court granting summary judgment in favor of Karen Lee Nelson, Personally and as Executrix of the Estate of Jerold Charles Nelson. We affirm. Jerold Charles Nelson (Jerold) died testate on October 22, 2021, at the age of seventy-nine. At the time of Jerold’s death, he was married to Karen Lee Nelson. In addition to his wife, Jerold was survived by his three adult children from a previous marriage: Laura, John, and Lisa. On November 2, 2021, a petition to probate Jerold’s will was filed in Pendleton District Court, Probate Division, Case No. 21-P-00126. Jerold’s wife, Karen, was named the Executrix of the will that was executed on June 10, 2016 (2016 Will). Then, on February 22, 2022, counsel for Laura and John filed a petition contesting the probate of the 2016 Will in the Pendleton Circuit Court. Laura and John named Karen Lee Nelson, Personally and as Executrix of the Estate of Jerold Charles Nelson (collectively referred to as Karen) and Lisa as Respondents. The crux of Laura and John’s challenge to the probate of the 2016 Will was their belief that Jerold lacked the testamentary capacity to execute same. In support thereof, Laura and John alleged that two days before the 2016 Will was executed Jerold had been assaulted and suffered a concussion resulting in Jerold lacking the capacity to execute the will. Laura and John further asserted that Jerold was in the emergency room ten days after he executed the 2016 Will and complained of an “ongoing headache from the assault with significant facial -2- trauma and was diagnosed with a closed head injury-post concussive syndrome.” February 22, 2022 Petition at 3; Trial Record (R.) at 3. On January 30, 2024, Karen filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Laura filed a pro se response to the Motion for Summary Judgment and Karen filed a reply. By Order entered March 5, 2024, the circuit court granted Karen’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Laura and John then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the circuit court denied by order entered April 6, 2024. This appeal follows. Appellants contend the circuit court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment in favor of Karen as there exists genuine issues of material fact surrounding whether Jerold possessed the testamentary capacity to execute the 2016 Will. Appellants also claim summary judgment was prematurely granted as they were not provided the opportunity to complete discovery. Likewise, Appellants assert they should have been granted an evidentiary hearing on Jerold’s testamentary capacity as he had suffered a concussion two days before executing the 2016 Will. The law on testamentary capacity is well settled in Kentucky and was aptly stated in Getty v. Getty, 581 S.W.3d 548 (Ky. 2019) as follows: In Kentucky there is a strong presumption in favor of a testator possessing adequate