Under Tennessee law, a will (or any other testamentary document for that matter), can be invalidated if the testator lacked testamentary capacity, i.e., lacked mental capacity. In the past, people have contacted my firm believing that someone’s will should be invalidated because they had a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s or dementia either at the time the will was signed, before it was signed, or even after it was signed. While such mental conditions may be helpful in proving that the testator lacked testamentary capacity, they are not necessarily enough to prove a lack of testamentary capacity.
What does it take to prove lack of testamentary capacity in Tennessee? It takes proof that the person did not understand the nature and effect of his or her act. Under Tennessee law, evidence that a person suffered from disease, infirmity, physical weakness, bad memory, or was elderly is admissible to prove a lack of testamentary capacity, but it is far from conclusive. Like many legal issues, whether a person lacked testamentary capacity must be determined by the unique facts of each individual case. Thus, it is helpful to look at some Tennessee court decisions in cases where it was alleged that the testator or testatrix lacked mental capacity.
In a recent will contest case, In re Estate of Barbara Jean Huff, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed a trial court’s finding that the testatrix lacked the testamentary capacity to make a valid will. The deceased testatrix signed the will at issue on September 5, 2021, about thirteen months before she passed. The successful contestant relied on the testimony of the deceased testatrix’s treating physician. That physician had been seeing the testatrix for eighteen years before her death, and had extensive experience with Alzheimer’s and dementia patients. He had seen her about every three months, and had seen her the month that she executed the will at issue. The physician’s testimony was not ambivalent. He testified that the testatrix was mentally impaired at the time she executed the will, and that she would not have been able to understand any document on the day she executed the will.
In contrast to the decision in the above case, in Moore v. Green, the court upheld a finding that the parties challenging the will, who relied on a doctor’s opinion, did not prove that the testatrix lacked mental capacity. The parties contesting the will offered the testimony of a doctor that the testatrix suffered from “senile dementia.” The problem that the court had with this evidence was that the doctor’s examination and diagnosis were made ten months after the will at issue was signed. The court found the doctor’s opinion “too remote in time” to be sufficient.
In the Moore case, the contestants also argued that the testatrix’s lack of mental capacity was proven by testimony from a lay witness that, as much as two years before the testatrix had signed her will, she was not able to handle bookkeeping and management for her business. In rejecting this evidence, the court found that less mental capacity is required to make a will than to carry on a business.
Another instructive case dealing with a testator’s lack of testamentary capacity is the 2013 decision of the Supreme Court of Tennessee in In re Smallman. The court there acknowledged that the testator was sick and infirm when he signed the will at issue, but, based on the testimony of multiple lay witnesses, it found, and held, that the testator had the requisite testamentary capacity at the time he made his will. Importantly, in that case, the court recognized that a person’s mental capacity may fluctuate, even when he or she is debilitated and terminally ill. The court held that lay witnesses’ testimony may be used to prove testamentary capacity if their testimony is not based purely on their conclusory opinions, but on their observations about the appearance, conduct, statements, and interactions with the testator. In Smallman, there was ample testimony from disinterested witnesses that the testator, at the time he executed the will, understood the extent and value of his assets, what he was doing with them, and that he was engaged in business transactions which he understood.
The most important thing for will contest lawyers to recognize when considering a challenge based on a lack of testamentary capacity, whether bringing one or defending against one, is that each case will stand or fall on its own facts. That being said, some general rules, such as the ones discussed above, will likely play a part in the outcome. In many cases, it will be hard to give a client any ballpark prediction about an outcome until medical records have been reviewed, physician’s opinions obtained, and lay witnesses interviewed.