Will Contestant Failed to Establish Lack of Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence
In the estate law, will contest case of Estate of Nalaschi, PICS Case No. 14-0581 (Pa. Super. April 11, 2014) The Honorable Christine L. Donohue writing on behalf of the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the will contestant failed to establish that decedent lacked testamentary capacity or that will was procured by undue influence.
Decedent executed two wills. The first, dated Jan. 28, 2010, named child Eugene executor and daughter Louise sole heir. The second, dated April 25, 2011, named attorney executor and son James sole beneficiary.
Eugene contested the 2011 will, arguing that decedent lacked testamentary capacity and that the will resulted from James’ undue influence. The court disagreed and probated the 2011 will. The Superior Court affirmed.
Testamentary capacity exists when a testator is aware of the natural objects of his bounty, the composition of his estate and what he wants done with it, even if his memory is impaired by disease. Courts evaluate testamentary capacity on date contested will was executed and for a reasonable time before and thereafter.
However, Eugene provided little evidence of decedent’s incompetence form the time reasonably close to execution of the 2011 will. He showed close to execution of the 2010, decedent was confused and forgetful: he accused two of his daughters of stealing form him, got lost on the way to an appointment at his doctor’s office, and became agitated at times when dealing with the area agency on aging. This evidence is not from a reasonable time before or after execution of the 2011 will, and in some instances, the conduct occurred more than one year prior to its execution. Furthermore, Eugene’s expert witness (who testified decedent was not competent to make a will) never actually met with decedent, but only reviewed his records.
Conversely, there was ample evidence that decedent was competent when he executed the 2011 will. Attorneys who worked with decedent, supervisors at the area agency on aging and a doctor who examined him approximately one week before will was executed had no concerns about decedent’s mental capacity and found him to be cognitively intact. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that decedent had testamentary capacity when he executed the 2011 will.
To prove undue influence the contestant must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that testator suffered from a weakened intellect at the time will was executed and that there was a person in a confidential relationship with testator who received a substantial benefit under the challenged will.
Using the same evidence he presented for testamentary capacity, Eugene argued that decedent had weakened intellect and that James was in a confidential relationship with decedent and received a substantial benefit under the will.
Weakened intellect in the context of a claim of undue influence need not amount to testamentary incapacity and will generally be proven through evidence more remote in time form the actual date of the will’s execution; it is “typically accompanied by persistent confusion, forgetfulness and disorientation.” In re: Estate of Fritts, 906 A.2d 601, 607 (Pa. Super. 2006). Given the testimony presented (it was identical to that for testamentary capacity), decedent’s behavior at the time he executed the 2011 will was not “accompanied by persistent confusion, forgetfulness and disorientation” (In re Estate of Fritts, 906 at 607) and did not rise to the level of weakened intellect.
A confidential relationship exists when parties do not deal on equal terms, where one is an overmastering influence or the other is weak or dependent. A parent-child relationship did not prove the existence of a confidential relationship. Conversely, two attorneys testified that James did not exert any influence over decedent when he made the 2011 will. Each met with decedent alone. James only drove decedent to the office upon decedent’s request. Accordingly, Eugene failed to prove that James exhibited overmastering power over decedent.
The trial court properly concluded that Eugene failed to establish a prima facie case of undue influence.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 37 PLW 388, (April 29, 2014)
Filed Under: Estate Law; Estate Litigation; Will Contest, Testamentary Capacity, Undue Influence
Contact our Philadelphia Estate and Business Law Firm with any of your questions, comments or concerns. Check our experienced Philadelphia Estate And Trust Litigation Attorneys for further help needed.