.webp)
.png)
Recently, we have spent time discussing the concept of testamentary capacity and the significance of this concept in the context of will formation. Essentially, testamentary capacity refers to the ability of a testator (i.e. the person who owns the estate which will be divided in a last will and testament) to execute a valid and enforceable will. In a very real sense, testamentary capacity mirrors the concept of “capacity” in the context of contract law: as we know, contracts require capacity as one of their basic elements, meaning those who create contracts must have sound mind and fully understand the terms of the agreement. Similarly, testators must be able to fully comprehend what is transpiring in order to produce a valid and enforceable last will and testament.
As readers might assume, the issue of testamentary capacity shows up frequently when wills be challenged. When an interested party attempts to caveat a will, they often try to undermine the will by arguing that the testator lacked genuine ability to execute the will to begin with. This was the case in Slicer v. Griffith (1975), a highly significant and influential precedent in the history of Maryland estate law.
As we will dive into, this case emphasized the fact that Maryland assigns the initial burden of proof to the challenger in instances of alleged lack of capacity on the part of the testator. Let’s explore this case in detail.
Factual Background of the Case
The testator in this case was a 93 year old man who was suffering from several serious ailments. Certain of these ailments were thought to have affected his legal capacity to develop a new will. The testator had already created a will in 1969, but in 1972 a new will was drafted which was supposedly intended to supplant and replace the earlier 1969 will. The 1972 will was notable because this new will basically left everything to one particular nephew, and this nephew played an active role in guiding and shepherding the development and eventual execution of the will.
When the testator passed, the testator’s other remaining nieces and nephews tried to undermine the validity of the 1972 will. These other interested parties claimed that the 1972 was invalid for several reasons: specifically, they claimed that the testator did not possess adequate mental capacity to execute the will due to his senility and other mental impairments. Furthermore, they argued that the 1972 was largely drafted by the testator’s live in attorney, something which reflected poorly on the will’s validity.
The nephew lost at the trial court level and then appealed.
Ruling & Post-Ruling Analysis
On appeal, the appellate court determined that the trial court’s ruling was correct and affirmed. Basically, the appellate division found clear errors or compelling reasons to overturn the original ruling. The basic facts of the case, as admitted at trial, were sufficient to sustain the challenge lodged by the other nieces and nephews: the testator, suffering from senility and several other debilitating conditions, at an advanced age of 93, was in a sense “coerced” by the nephew into producing the 1972 will. Also important was the fact that the nephew unilaterally destroyed the previous 1969 will on his own. In any case, it was clear to the appellate division that the testator did not have adequate mental faculties to draft and execute a valid replacement will.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If readers want to know more about testamentary capacity, challenging a will, the basic requirements to create a valid and enforceable will, or any other estate planning matter, contact one of the estate planning attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
.png)
.png)
