American Red Cross v. Estate of Haynsworth
1998 WL 65303, 708 So. 2d 602 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a testator has been adjudicated incompetent, a subsequently executed will is presumed to be invalid. To overcome this presumption, the will's proponent must present competent, substantial evidence that the will was executed during a lucid interval in which the testator possessed the specific testamentary capacity to understand the nature of their property, their relation to beneficiaries, and the will's practical effect.
Facts:
- On February 4, 1993, John Anderson Haynsworth, Jr., executed the 'February Will' prepared by his attorney, Ted Blum, which left the bulk of his estate to three charities and included a bequest to Blum of approximately five percent of the estate.
- Shortly thereafter, Haynsworth purchased a new home but hired a different attorney instead of Blum to handle the transaction.
- On April 16, 1993, Blum filed a petition to determine Haynsworth's mental capacity.
- A competency hearing was held on May 18, 1993, where medical testimony described Haynsworth as disoriented, suffering from organic brain syndrome, and unable to recall the current year or the name of his late wife.
- A probate court later issued an order, effective as of May 18, 1993, formally adjudicating Haynsworth totally incapacitated and appointing his niece, Lisa Haynsworth-Jones, as his guardian.
- On July 30, 1993, Haynsworth executed a new will, the 'July Will,' which was drafted by a new attorney and significantly reduced the bequests to the charities while increasing the bequests to his niece and other family members.
Procedural Posture:
- Following John Haynsworth Jr.'s death, competing petitions were filed in the state probate court (trial court) to administer three different wills.
- The decedent's nephew sought administration of the 'February Will,' while the decedent's niece sought administration of the 'July Will' and 'November Will,' ultimately advocating for the July Will alone.
- After a non-jury trial, the trial court found the February Will invalid due to undue influence by the drafting attorney and found the decedent lacked capacity for the November Will.
- The trial court entered a final judgment admitting the July Will to probate.
- The beneficiaries of the February Will, including the American Red Cross, United Way, and other relatives (Appellants), appealed the judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a will's proponent overcome the presumption of testamentary incapacity that arises from a prior adjudication of incompetence by presenting general testimony that the testator appeared lucid, without providing specific evidence that the testator understood the nature of his property, his beneficiaries, and the will's practical effect?
Opinions:
Majority - Levy, Judge
No. The proponent of a will executed after a testator has been adjudicated incompetent does not overcome the presumption of incapacity merely by showing the testator appeared lucid. An adjudication of incompetency shifts the burden of proof to the will's proponent to demonstrate that it was executed during a lucid interval. A lucid interval requires proof that the testator possessed actual testamentary capacity, which is the ability to understand: 1) the nature and extent of the property, 2) their relation to those who would naturally benefit from the will, and 3) the practical effect of the will as executed. In this case, the niece's evidence, consisting of expert testimony from doctors who did not examine Haynsworth near the relevant time and lay testimony that he could exchange pleasantries, failed to address these specific elements. Therefore, the niece did not provide competent, substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of incapacity, rendering the July Will and the subsequent November Will invalid. Furthermore, while the trial court correctly found undue influence regarding attorney Blum's fee in the February Will, the entire will is not void; only the tainted provision is struck, and the remainder of the will should be admitted to probate.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant legal weight of a formal adjudication of incompetence on a testator's subsequent capacity to execute a will. It clarifies that the evidentiary standard to prove a 'lucid interval' is high and requires specific proof directly related to the elements of testamentary capacity, not just generalized observations of lucidity. The case also affirms the principle of partial invalidity, ensuring that a testator's entire plan is not frustrated by a single provision procured through undue influence, thereby preserving the testator's valid intentions.
