Cunningham v. Stender
127 Colo. 293, 255 P.2d 977, 1953 Colo. LEXIS 383 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Testamentary capacity requires that a testator not only understands the nature of their act and the extent of their property, but also has the ability to know and recall the natural objects of their bounty. A jury instruction on testamentary capacity that omits this essential element constitutes prejudicial error.
Facts:
- Dorothea Cunningham, a widow, allegedly executed a will on April 2, 1948.
- The purported will bequeathed a sum to a nephew and divided the remainder of the estate among her five siblings.
- The will entirely excluded her son and only heir, C. J. Cunningham, who was the only interested party residing in the same town as his mother.
- On July 27, 1948, a court formally adjudged Dorothea Cunningham to be a mental incompetent, finding her incapable of managing herself or her property.
- Dorothea Cunningham died on August 31, 1948.
- After her death, the original will, which was last seen in her possession, could not be found.
Procedural Posture:
- Royal T. Stender (proponent) initiated proceedings in the Larimer County court to probate a 'lost' will of Dorothea Cunningham.
- C. J. Cunningham (caveator), the decedent's son, filed a caveat challenging the will.
- The county court, as the court of first instance, found in favor of the caveator.
- The proponent appealed the county court's decision to the district court of Larimer County.
- Following a trial, the district court jury also returned a verdict against the proponent.
- The proponent appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- Upon retrial in the district court, the jury found in favor of the proponent, and the will was admitted to probate.
- The caveator, C. J. Cunningham, brought this writ of error to the Colorado Supreme Court to review the district court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do jury instructions defining testamentary capacity constitute reversible error if they fail to state that a testator must have sufficient mental capacity to know and recall the persons who are the natural objects of their bounty?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Knauss
Yes, such jury instructions constitute reversible error. The legal standard for testamentary capacity requires more than merely understanding the disposition of property; it fundamentally includes the testator's ability to know and remember the natural objects of their bounty. The trial court's instructions were insufficient because they stated that it was enough for the testatrix to 'fully understand and intend to make the disposition which she made of her property.' This is an incomplete statement of the law, as a person could meet this standard while being entirely unable to recall the existence of their own child due to disease or mental infirmity. Citing precedent such as Lehman v. Lindenmeyer, the court reaffirmed that a key component of a 'sound mind' for will-making purposes is the ability to know one's relations and the claims they have on one's estate. The omission of this element from the jury instructions was a prejudicial error that requires the judgment to be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a comprehensive, multi-factor test for testamentary capacity in Colorado, emphasizing that the cognitive and memory functions related to family relationships are as crucial as understanding the nature of one's property. It clarifies for lower courts that jury instructions in will contests must be complete and precise, as omitting any one of the essential elements of capacity can be grounds for reversal. The case serves as a precedent for challenging wills where a testator with questionable mental fitness unnaturally disinherits a close heir, making it clear that the testator's awareness of their family is a central issue for the jury to consider.
Unlock the full brief for Cunningham v. Stender