Challenging the Validity of a Last Will and Testament on the Basis of Incapacity

Introduction

When it comes to the validity of a Last Will and Testament, testamentary capacity plays a crucial role. In Florida, case law defines testamentary capacity as “the ability to mentally understand in a general way (1) the nature and extent of the property to be disposed of, (2) the testator’s relation to those who would naturally claim a substantial benefit from his will, and (3) a general understanding of the practical effect of the will as executed” (Raimi v. Furlong, 702 So. 2d 1273, 1286 [Fla. 3d DCA 1998]). This article explores the grounds for challenging the validity of a will based on incapacity, citing relevant Florida case law and highlighting key elements involved.

Understanding Testamentary Capacity

Testamentary capacity refers to the mental capacity of the testator to understand essential aspects of their will. According to Florida case law, specifically Raimi v. Furlong, testamentary capacity involves three key elements:

1. Nature and extent of property: The testator must understand the property they are disposing of through the will.
2. Relation to beneficiaries: The testator should recognize the beneficiaries and their relationship to themselves.
3. Practical effect of the will: The testator needs to have a general understanding of the consequences and impact of the executed will.

Diaz v. Ashworth, 963 So. 2d 731 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007), is a significant case that explores the requirements for testamentary capacity in Florida. The court’s careful review of the record led them to adopt the trial court’s order, which emphasized the applicable standards for determining testamentary incompetence as outlined in Raimi v. Furlong, 702 So. 2d 1273, 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

In Raimi v. Furlong, the Third District of the Florida Court of Appeals highlighted the importance of recognizing the valuable right individuals possess to dispose of their property through a will. It stressed that the law seeks to uphold the validity of a last will and testament whenever possible (In re Weihe’s Estate, 268 So. 2d 446, 451 [Fla. 4th DCA 1972], quashed on existing facts, 275 So. 2d 244 [Fla. 1973]; In re Dunson’s Estate, 141 So. 2d 601 at 604 [Fla. 2d DCA 1962]).

To execute a valid will, the testator must possess testamentary capacity, commonly referred to as being of “sound mind.” This capacity is defined as the ability to mentally understand, in a general way, three essential aspects: (1) the nature and extent of the property to be disposed of, (2) the testator’s relation to individuals who would naturally claim a substantial benefit from the will, and (3) a general comprehension of the practical effect of the will once executed. This understanding of testamentary capacity has been supported in previous cases, including In re Wilmott’s Estate, 66 So. 2d 465, 467 (Fla. 1953), In re Weihe’s Estate, 268 So. 2d at 448, and In re Dunson’s Estate, 141 So. 2d at 604.

Importantly, the court in Diaz v. Ashworth noted that even individuals who frequently exhibit behaviors such as intoxication, narcotic use, an enfeebled mind, failing memory, or vacillating judgment may still possess testamentary capacity to execute a valid will. This understanding aligns with the legal principles established in previous cases (In re Wilmott’s Estate, 66 So. 2d at 467; In re Weihe’s Estate, 268 So. 2d at 448; In re Dunson’s Estate, 141 So. 2d at 604).

In summary, Diaz v. Ashworth sheds light on the requirements for testamentary capacity in Florida. It emphasizes the need for the testator to understand the nature and extent of their property, their relationship to potential beneficiaries, and the practical effect of the will. The case also clarifies that individuals with certain impairments or conditions, such as frequent intoxication or a failing memory, may still possess the capacity to execute a valid will.

Determining Testamentary Capacity

The determination of testamentary capacity focuses on the testator’s mental state at the time of executing the will. In re Estate of Dunson (141 So. 2d 601 [Fla. 2d DCA 1962]) emphasizes that evidence regarding the testator’s mental condition before and after the execution is relevant. This includes medical records and testimonies from witnesses who interacted with the testator during those periods. Understanding the testator’s mental condition at the time of executing the will is essential in assessing testamentary capacity.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof lies with the party contesting the will, as established in In re Estate of Dunson (141 So. 2d 601). To meet this burden, there are two avenues:

1. Direct evidence: This includes the testimony of individuals who were present during the will’s signing and can provide insight into the testator’s mental capacity.
2. Indirect evidence and inferences: Inferences can be drawn from evidence of the testator’s mental condition leading up to and following the execution of the will. This can include medical records and testimonies from witnesses who interacted with the testator before and after the signing. Notably, lay witness testimony supporting the testator’s capacity at the time of signing can outweigh conflicting medical testimony, as highlighted in In re Hammermann’s Est. (387 So. 2d 409, 411 [Fla. 4th DCA 1980]).

MINI-MENTAL STATE EXAMINATION (MMSE)

In the context of scoring someone for dementia, a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a commonly used tool to assess cognitive function and screen for potential cognitive impairment. The MMSE evaluates various cognitive domains, including orientation, registration, attention and calculation, recall, language, and visual-spatial abilities. Scoring the MMSE provides a quantitative measure of a person’s cognitive abilities and aids in the identification and monitoring of cognitive decline associated with dementia.

The MMSE consists of a series of questions and tasks, and each item is assigned a specific point value. The total score is calculated by summing the points achieved across all items. The maximum score on the MMSE is 30 points, with higher scores indicating better cognitive function. It is important to note that the interpretation of the MMSE score should be done in conjunction with a comprehensive clinical assessment and consideration of the individual’s background, education level, and other relevant factors.

Let’s briefly discuss the different components of the MMSE and the scoring criteria for each:

1. Orientation (10 points): The individual is asked to provide information about the current date, day of the week, month, year, and their location (e.g., state, city, building). Each correct response earns one point.
2. Registration (3 points): The examiner reads a list of three unrelated words and asks the person to repeat them. One point is given for each correctly recalled word.
3. Attention and Calculation (5 points): The person is asked to perform simple calculations or serial sevens (e.g., subtracting seven from 100 and repeating this process four more times). A point is awarded for each correct answer.
4. Recall (3 points): After a brief delay, the person is asked to recall the three words mentioned earlier. One point is given for each correctly recalled word.
5. Language (9 points): This section evaluates language skills through tasks such as naming objects, repeating sentences, following verbal instructions, and writing a sentence. Each item has an assigned point value.
6. Visual-Spatial Abilities (1 point): The person may be asked to copy a simple drawing or intersecting pentagons. One point is awarded for correct completion.

The MMSE score is calculated by summing the points achieved across all these components. The interpretation of the total score is as follows:

• 24-30 points: Normal cognitive function.
• 18-23 points: Mild cognitive impairment.
• 0-17 points: Indicates cognitive impairment, with lower scores suggesting greater severity.

It’s important to remember that the MMSE is just one tool among many used in the assessment of dementia. A comprehensive evaluation, including medical history, physical examination, neuroimaging, and additional neuropsychological assessments, is typically necessary for an accurate diagnosis. The MMSE provides valuable information but should be used in conjunction with other clinical assessments and professional judgment to evaluate an individual’s cognitive status and potential for dementia.

Presumption of Capacity and Lucid Intervals

In cases where there is evidence of temporary or fluctuating mental instability, as opposed to a permanent and progressive type, a presumption of capacity exists, as established in Alexander v. Callahan’s Estate (132 So. 2d 42, 43 [Fla. 3d DCA 1961]). Moreover, even if a testator shows signs of mental instability, there may be moments of clarity known as “lucid intervals.” These lucid intervals can validate a will that might otherwise be deemed invalid. A “lucid moment” is defined by Florida case law as a time when the testator returns to a “state of comprehension” (American Red Cross v. Estate of Haynesworth, 708 So. 2d 602, 606 [Fla. 3d DCA 1998]).

Challenging the validity of a Last Will and Testament based on incapacity requires a careful examination of testamentary capacity, as defined by Florida case law. The burden of proof rests with the party contesting the will, who can present both direct and indirect evidence, including lay witness testimony, to demonstrate the lack of testamentary capacity. Understanding the concept of a “lucid interval” is crucial in evaluating the testator’s mental state at the time of executing the will. By considering these factors and adhering to the relevant legal precedents, it becomes possible to contest the validity of a will on the grounds of incapacity.

If You Suspect Incapacity to Execute a Last Will and Testament We Can Help.

Our office has handled thousands of Estates. A large part of our practice is dedicated to fighting elder abuse, including Will and Trust Contests. If you suspect a Last Will and Testament was procured fraudulently when the testator lacked capacity to sign, call me. Our office was set up to assist Floridians in fighting elder abuse and we offer free, no obligation consultations.

-Brice Zoecklein

813-501-5071

Disclaimer:   The information contained in this blog/website is for informational purposes only and provides general information about the law but not specific advice.  This information should not be used as a substitute for advice from competent legal counsel as laws change and the facts in your specific case need to be analyzed. 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

1. In re Estate of Edwards, 433 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983): This case focuses on testamentary capacity in Florida, highlighting the three elements required for a testator to be deemed of “sound mind.” These elements include understanding the nature and extent of the property to be disposed of, the testator’s relationship to potential beneficiaries, and a general comprehension of the practical effect of the executed will.
2. American R.C. v. Est., Haynsworth, 708 So. 2d 602 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998): This case addresses testamentary capacity requirements in Florida and explores three essential issues. These issues include establishing testamentary capacity in the presence of a prior adjudication of incompetency, determining the burden of proof for demonstrating testamentary capacity, and examining the impact of undue influence on the validity of an entire will.
3. Estate Clara R. Starr v. Wilson, 125 Fla. 536 (Fla. 1936): This case discusses the mental capacity standard for making a will in Florida. It emphasizes that the testator must have sufficient mental capacity to comprehend the condition of their property, their relationship with potential beneficiaries, and the provisions of the will. The court concludes that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim of undue influence or lack of mental capacity in this particular case.
4. In re Estate of Swanson, 397 So. 2d 465 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981): This case explores the validity of wills executed by nonresidents of Florida and clarifies the application of a statute governing such wills. It also highlights the common law rule that determines the validity of a will devising real property based on the law of the property’s location.
5. In Re: Carnegie Estate, 13 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1943): This case establishes that testamentary capacity to make a will refers to the testator’s condition at the time of execution. The court states that a will made by an insane person during a lucid interval remains valid, emphasizing the importance of the testator’s state of mind at the time of making the will.
6. In re Dunson’s Estate, 141 So. 2d 601 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962): This case focuses on the mental capacity requirements for a testator in Florida. It underscores that mental capacity depends on a sound mind rather than a sound body. The court specifies that a testator must have the ability to understand the nature and extent of the property being disposed of, their relationship to potential beneficiaries, and the practical effect of the executed will.
7. Jordan v. Fehr, 902 So. 2d 198 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005): This case addresses the execution requirements for a valid will in Florida, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with the statutory formalities. It highlights the importance of the testator’s signature, the presence of witnesses during signing or acknowledgment, and the witnesses’ signatures in the presence of the testator and each other.
8. Malleiro v. Mori, 182 So. 3d 5 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015): This case pertains to the validity of a notarial will from Argentina in Florida. It concludes that the Argentine will, although a notarial will, is invalid in Florida because it is unsigned and therefore fails to comply with the formalities required for a valid will.