COURT SHOULD HAVE NOT RELIED ON SCRIVENER, WHO ONLY RECENT MET TESTATRIX, TO ESTABLISH TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY
Trail court erred in relying upon will scrivener to establish testator’s testamentary capacity and erroneously denied appeal from probate where proponents failed to overcome prima facie evidence establishing a presumption of undue influence. Order of the superior court vacated, case remanded.
Contestants appealed from the denial of their appeal from probate of the will of testatrix Stella Fabian. Testatrix died predeceased by her husband and daughter. In 2014, testatrix left a will in which she left the entirety of her estate to her nieces and nephews in equal shares. The will superseded a prior will in which testatrix left her entire estate to her daughter and if her daughter predeceased her, to various individuals in shares set forth in the will.
The 2014 will was admitted to probate. Contestants filed a petition for citation to show cause to appeal from probate and vacate the will. Contestants alleged that the 2014 will was the product of undue influence by the named executors, that testatrix lacked testamentary capacity, and that the will was the product of mistake by testatrix and did not represent her true testamentary intent. The trial court denied contestants’ appeal.
On appeal, contestants challenged the trial court’s ruling that their expert was not qualified to offer an opinion on mental capacity and argued that the trial court erred in concluding that testatrix did not suffer from a weakened intellect and erred by not finding that the heirs under the will failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence.
The court vacated and remanded the trial court’s order. The court first ruled that the trial court did not err in refusing to qualify contestants’ witness as an expert witness. The court acknowledged that the witness clearly possessed “specialized knowledge” as a registered nurse and the director of a nursing where many residents suffered from Alzheimer’s disease and dementia and where testatrix resided. The court held that the trial court erroneously based its ruling on the fact that the witness lacked a bachelor’s degree, had not published any papers on dementia, and had never before been qualified as an expert. However, the court ruled that the failure to admit the witness’s testimony was not prejudicial because it was cumulative of testimony provided by a treating physician from the same facility.
However, the court ruled that the trial court erroneously relied upon the testimony of the scrivener of the will that testatrix did not suffer from a weakened intellect because she was “quite lucid at the time she executed the contested will.” Instead, the court noted that undue influence was accomplished by “gradual, progressive inculcation of a receptive mind” such that the effects of undue influence might not be apparent until long after a “weakened intellect has been played upon.” Thus, the court ruled that the will’s scrivener, who had only recently met testatrix, would have no way of knowing whether testatrix’s mental state was susceptible to undue influence. Finally, the court noted that contestants had established a prima facie presumption of undue influence as testatrix was in a confidential relationship with the beneficiaries under the 2014 will and received a substantial benefit under the will.
REF: Digests of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 42, PLW 1105, Tuesday, November 19, 2019 Estate of: Fabian, PICS Case No. 19-1358 (Pa. Super. Nov 7, 2019) Lazarus, J.
Kindly visit our Estate Litigation website or contact one of our Estate Litigation Attorneys or Wills, Trusts & Estate Litigation Attorneys for more information on this topic