ILNews

Edward Thomas: Tips on determining testamentary capacity

September 11, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

By Edward D. Thomas
 

thomas-edward Thomas

The requirements for making a will in Indiana are two-fold: The individual must be (1) of sound mind, and (2) 18 years of age or older. Ind. Code § 29-1-5-1. In actions to contest and set aside the probate of a will, the grounds usually asserted are some combination of unsoundness of mind, fraud, duress, undue influence or that the will was unduly executed. See Ind. Code § 29-1-7-17. One of the more difficult challenges in a will contest is establishing that the testator lacked testamentary capacity. In general, a will executed while the testator is of unsound mind is invalid. However, contrary to popular belief, factors such as old age, physical failings or even failing memory alone are insufficient to establish a lack of testamentary capacity.

Indiana courts presume that every person is of sound mind to execute a will until the contrary is shown. Gast v. Hall, 858 N.E.2d 154, 165 (Ind. App. 2006). To rebut this presumption, a party must show that the testator lacks mental capacity at the time of executing his will to know: (1) the extent and value of his property; (2) those who are the natural objects of his bounty; and (3) their deserts, with respect to their treatment of and conduct toward him. Hays v. Harmon, 809 N.E.2d 460, 464 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans denied.

The key to successfully challenging a will essentially focuses on a two-part inquiry. First, unsoundness of mind sufficient to render a will invalid must exist at the time of the execution of the will. See Deery v. Hall, 175 N.E.141 (Ind. App. 1931). Second, it must be established that the unsoundness of mind impacted the testator’s ability to know his property and know to whom he wishes to devise this property. Thus, to be incapable of executing a will because of unsoundness of mind, a person must have such a degree of mental unsoundness that he or she does not reach the standard of competency generally recognized by law.

While the law does not seek to define the exact quality of mind and memory a testator must possess to authorize him or her to make a will, it does require the testator to know and understand the business in which he or she is engaged, the extent of his or her estate, and the persons who would be the natural objects of his or her bounty. Indiana courts simply require the testator to be able to keep these in mind long enough to form a rational judgment in relation to them. Kaiser v. Happel, 36 N.E.2d 784 (Ind. 1941).

The capacity to make a will is not measured by the testator’s actual knowledge or understanding of the extent and nature of the property devised, but by his or her capacity to understand the extent of his or her estate and the objects of his or her bounty. While a total loss of memory, or the fact that it has become seriously impaired, may render a person incompetent to make a will, not every slight or partial loss of memory will do so. Whiteman v. Whiteman, 53 N.E. 225 (Ind. 1899).

On the issue of testamentary capacity, evidence of the testator’s appearance, conduct, statements, declarations or conversations, both before and after the execution of the will, may be admissible if it is material and occurred in close proximity to the execution of the will. This type of evidence is admissible solely for the purpose of establishing the condition of the testator’s mind, but not as proof of the truth of the facts stated. The exact time which may be covered by the period before or after the testamentary act to show the testator’s mental condition when making the will lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Thus, the issue of admissibility of evidence is critical to this determination.

Generally, competent evidence of every fact which sheds light on the issue of testamentary capacity is admissible. On the other hand, incompetent, irrelevant or immaterial evidence is generally held inadmissible. Although a testator’s capacity to make a will is to be determined by his or her condition at the time of its execution, evidence of the testator’s mental condition either before or after execution may, depending on the circumstances of each case, be material and admissible. Griffith v. Thrall, 29 N.E.2d 345 (Ind. App. 1940). However, this is true only for the purpose of showing the condition of the testator’s mind at the time the will was executed. Estate of Verdi ex rel. Verdi v. Toland, 733 N.E.2d 25 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). Where it is established, however, that at the specific time of the execution of the will the testator was mentally sound, his or her mental condition at some other time is of no consequence. Peters v. Knight, 8 N.E.2d 401 (Ind. App. 1937).

Indiana courts have specifically admitted evidence as to various matters on the issue of testamentary capacity, such as: (1) hereditary insanity among the testator’s relatives; (2) testator’s insane delusions and peculiar beliefs or opinions; (3) testator’s physical condition; (4) statements in the testator’s will that he had advanced specific sums to named persons were erroneous; (5) testator’s habits and reputation; and (6) the reasonableness of the provisions of a will.

When testamentary capacity is an issue, or if there is a concern that there may be a challenge based on capacity in the future, it is appropriate for the estate planning attorney to ask a series of questions of the testator before execution of the will. These questions should elicit the testator’s knowledge of the extent of their estate, including the names a nd ages of heirs and beneficiaries. The attorney should also discuss the effects of the will and ensure the testator generally understands the effects of signing the testamentary document. While there is no guarantee that one’s will cannot be successfully challenged, following these suggestions will aid the testator’s personal representative and attorney to defend a subsequent will contest.

Edward D. Thomas (ethomas@lewiswagner.com) is an attorney at Lewis Wagner LLP in Indianapolis, Indiana. He devotes a portion of his practice to representing individuals, executors and trustees when disputes arise in the settlement of estates and the administration of trusts. Opinions expressed are those of the author.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT