WILL CHALLENGE: PETITIONER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE DECEDENT LACKED MENTAL CAPACITY
Petitioners failed to demonstrate that decedent lacked sufficient mental capacity to execute a new will where they produced no medical evidence to support the claim and they themselves had decedent sign an attorney contingency fee agreement during the same period, illustrating confidence in decedent’s mental capacity. The court denied a petition to vacate decedent’s will.
Decedent died on Nov. 23, 2016, at the age of 80. He was survived by his two sons, Mark and Timothy Roczey. At the time of his death, decedent had executed a will dated Oct. 6, 2016. This will devised decedent’s estate in four equal parts to Mark, Timothy and decedent’s good friends Stephen Dorko and his wife Brigitta Dorko. The will also gave Stephen and Brigitta the right to reside to decedent’s property in Effort, Pennsylvania for their natural lives. The 2016 will revised the percentage of an earlier 2012 will, which gave the Dorkos life rights to reside in his residence and called for the rest of the estate to be devised 40 percent to Timothy, 40 percent to Mark and 20 percent to Brigitta. Mark and Timothy filed an appeal to the probate of the 2016 will whereupon the court conducted a hearing. These petitioners alleged that decedent lacked the required mental capacity at the time he executed the 2016 will. A testator’s mental capacity at the time he executes a will is best determined by his spoken works and actual conduct, the court observed. In support of their claim that decedent lacked the required mental capacity at the relevant time, petitioners offered their own testimony and the medical records from decedent’s hospitalization from June 2016 and September and October 2016. The court noted, however, that petitioners provided no medical expert testimony and that the medical records did not appear to cover the entire length of decedent’s stay or all the providers for the two periods at issue. Moreover, there was no certification to establish the validity of the produced records. Neither the medical records nor petitioner’s testimony convinced the court that decedent lacked mental capacity following his June 2016 hospitalization to execute the 2016 will. Decedent returned to his home after the first hospitalization until he suffered a fall and fractured his hip at the end of September. Petitioners only saw decedent once during the relevant period and showed no apparent concern for decedent’s condition, the court observed. In fact, they were so confident of decedent’s mental capacity that they approached him on Sept. 15, 2016, about a medical malpractice case arising from decedent’s June 2016 hospitalization and had him sign a contingent fee agreement with a lawyer. Petitioners had no problem with decedent’s mental capacity on that date, the court observed in its opinion finding that petitioners failed to produce enough evidence of the diminished capacity. The mere fact that decedent was in the hospital of the will’s execution did not mean he was incapacitated, the court said in its decision denying petitioners relief.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 41 PLW 885, (Tuesday, September 18, 2018), In Re: Estate of Roczey, PICS Case No. 18-1034 (C.P. Monroe Aug. 16, 2018) Williamson, J.
Kindly visit our Wills, Trusts and Estate Litigation and Estate Planning websites or contact one of our Wills, Trusts & Estate Litigation Attorneys, Philadelphia or Estate Attorneys, Philadelphia at 215-977-8200 for more information on this topic.