Undue influence claims are really about testamentary capacity. For a will to be valid, the testator (the person making the will) must have testamentary capacity. Testamentary capacity exists when a person is fully aware of his actions and understands that he is giving away his assets. The person must also understand who his assets are being given to.
The person alleging that the will is the product of undue influence is really arguing that the influence was such that the person who made the will lacked the mental capacity to do so. The person is claiming that the person’s mind was so overridden by the influence of another that the person didn’t have the mental capacity to execute a will.
Because these issues are so fact-specific, cases involving testamentary capacity often involve burdens of proof. The burden of proof has to do with whose responsibility it is to prove a given fact. The party submitting the will for probate has the burden of proving that the will is valid. Once the court establishes that the will, on its face, is valid, the party contesting the will must then offer proof to why the will is in invalid.
Evidence of testamentary capacity is judged by a standard known as the preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is a standard in which the court weighs the evidence presented by each party and decides upon the most convincing. Each side’s evidence is weighed according to relevance and reliability and not merely by the amount that is presented.
A recent Mississippi appellate case illustrates the application of this standard to will contests based on lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The case involved a Mississippi appellate court’s decision about the validity of a will made by Willie Ray Rutland in 2002. Willie Ray died in 2005 and was survived by his niece, Diane Rutland Nations, his cousin, Calvin Rutland, and his nephews, Rickie Dale Rutland and Todd Rutland.
Willie Ray’s 2002 will, which named Diane Rutland Nations as the sole beneficiary of his estate, was offered to probate by Calvin Rutland. The will was contested by Rickie and Todd Rutland on the grounds that Willie Ray lacked the mental capacity to execute a will in 2002 and also that the will was executed under undue influence from Calvin and Diane. Rickie and Todd wanted the court to accept a will written by Willie Ray in 1989 in which he left all his real property to Rickie and Todd.
The lower court’s decision was a disappointment all the way around. The lower court found that the 2002 will was invalid based on Willie Ray’s lack of mental capacity (testamentary capacity) to execute a will, but did not discuss the issue of undue influence. But the lower court didn’t like the 1989 will either, holding that Willie Ray’s estate should be administered as though he died without a will (intestate).
The parties appealed the decision of the lower court. The appellate court had to decide if Willie Ray had sufficient testamentary capacity to execute a will in 2002 will or, conversely, if the 2002 will had been the product of undue influence.
The court heard testimony from all the parties. The testimony indicated that Willie Ray signed the will at his residence in a retirement home. It was drawn up by an attorney, who was a friend of Calvin’s, and Willie Ray signed the will in front of witnesses, including Calvin and the administrator of the retirement home. The attorney, the administrator, and Willie Ray’s doctor testified that he was fully aware of his actions and what he was doing with his assets.
Rickie and Todd testified that Willie Ray had been losing his mind since 1998 and could not have understood the gravity of his actions. But neither Rickie nor Todd had seen Willie Ray around the time the 2002 will was signed and often went months without seeing him. The court discounted their testimony, stating “testimony regarding capacity from witnesses who have not seen the testator in months will be deemed irrelevant by the Court.” The court held that testimony that is broad or overly general will not meet the preponderance of the evidence standard when it is contradicted by specific, relevant evidence of mental capacity. The court noted that a person that generally lacks the mental capacity to execute a will can make a valid will during “lucid intervals” when capacity exists. Therefore, the court found that Willie Ray possessed sufficient testamentary capacity to execute the 2002 will.
Rickie and Todd also asserted that Willie Ray’s 2002 will was the product of undue influence by Calvin and Diane. When writing a will it is also important that you are executing the will on your own volition and not solely for the benefit of another. The court will throw out a will that has been executed under undue influence (for more on undue influence, see What is Undue Influence?). The court presumes undue influence if a confidential relationship existed between the testator and a beneficiary of the will and there is evidence that the beneficiary somehow abused their relationship. One example of suspected undue influence is if a beneficiary is an active participant in the execution of the will. However, to be considered undue influence, the will must reflect the desire of the beneficiary rather than the intentions of the testator.
The court found enough evidence to prove a confidential relationship between Diane and Willie Ray. During the period of time that Willie Ray created his 2002 will Diane assisted Willie Ray in getting around town, she held power of attorney to execute financial and legal documents on his behalf, and she had helped him with his finances since 2001. But one must prove more than just the existence of a confidential relationship. To have the will invalidated for undue influence Diane, as the sole beneficiary, must have actively participated in the execution of the will. Evidence was presented that Diane was not in the room at the time the will was executed, nor had she had any significant contact with Willie Ray’s attorney or Willie Ray regarding the drafting of the will. Based on these facts, the court held that the will was not a product of undue influence and was valid. The 2002 will was found to replace the will executed by Willie Ray in 1989 and Rickie and Todd failed to inherit from Willie Ray.
In re Estate of Rutland, 2008-CA-01671-COA (Dec. 8, 2009).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.