Barnes v. Marshall
1971 Mo. LEXIS 1027, 467 S.W.2d 70 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a testator's mental condition long prior to the execution of a will is admissible to prove lack of testamentary capacity if it tends to show the testator's condition at the time of execution, particularly when supported by medical testimony of an incurable and progressive mental disease.
Facts:
- For many years, Dr. A. H. Marshall claimed to have direct conversations with the Lord, who he said revealed the secrets of heaven and gave him the power to punish his enemies by causing their financial ruin, illness, and death.
- Dr. Marshall asserted that he was the Messiah and a great leader, ran for President of the United States on a platform of canceling public debt and killing bankers, and campaigned from a car covered in biblical quotations.
- He frequently appeared in public establishments, such as a packing plant, dressed only in a nightgown and bathrobe, and on one occasion exposed his private parts to people present.
- In 1940, Dr. Marshall was professionally diagnosed with manic-depressive psychosis, an illness which a doctor testified was incurable and would gradually worsen over time.
- After his wife's death, Dr. Marshall became enraged and demanded that his daughter, Julia Amma Barnes, repay him $3,500 that he had been legally compelled to pay his wife decades earlier, threatening to disinherit her if she refused.
- On April 30, 1968, Dr. Marshall executed a will that devised the bulk of his $525,400 estate to various religious and charitable organizations, leaving his daughter, Julia Amma Barnes, and her family only $5.00 each per year.
- Dr. Marshall was unreasonably jealous of his wife, verbally abused her in public, and told others that women who wore short skirts or smoked were immoral.
- Dr. Marshall died on July 29, 1968.
Procedural Posture:
- Julia Amma Barnes, the testator's daughter, filed an action in a Missouri trial court to contest the will and two codicils of her father, Dr. A. H. Marshall.
- The defendants were the beneficiaries named in the will.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict that the documents were not the last will and codicils of Dr. Marshall.
- A number of the defendant-beneficiaries (appellants) appealed the jury's verdict to the Supreme Court of Missouri (the highest court).
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 sufficient evidence exist to support a jury's finding that a testator lacked the mental capacity to make a will when that evidence includes extensive lay testimony of the testator's bizarre behavior and delusional beliefs spanning decades, supported by expert medical testimony of a long-standing, incurable mental illness?
Opinions:
Majority - Holman, J.
Yes. Sufficient evidence was presented for the case to be submitted to a jury. The court found that the plaintiff's evidence, including testimony about the testator's bizarre views on government, religion, and finance, went far beyond mere 'peculiarities and eccentricities' and was sufficient for a jury to reasonably find he was of unsound mind. This conclusion was strongly supported by medical testimony diagnosing the testator with manic-depressive psychosis, an incurable and progressive mental disease, nearly 30 years before the will was executed. The court reasoned that this medical diagnosis made evidence of the testator's mental state over a long period relevant to his capacity at the time the will was executed. The court also held that lay witnesses were properly allowed to give their opinion of the testator's unsoundness of mind because they first detailed facts and conduct inconsistent with sanity.
Analysis:
This case affirms the principle that testamentary capacity is a question of fact for the jury, and an appellate court will not reweigh the evidence. It clarifies the standards for admitting both remote evidence and lay witness opinions regarding a testator's sanity. The ruling establishes that evidence of long-standing delusional behavior, when linked by expert medical testimony to a progressive mental illness, is highly probative and can support a jury's finding of incapacity, even against testimony that the testator appeared lucid at the moment of the will's execution. This decision provides a strong basis for will contestants to introduce a wide range of historical evidence to demonstrate a testator's lack of capacity.
