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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT