Estate of Mann
184 Cal. App. 3d 593, 229 Cal. Rptr. 225 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of old age, forgetfulness, or being under a conservatorship is insufficient to prove lack of testamentary capacity, which must be shown at the specific time of the will's execution. A presumption of undue influence requires proof that the beneficiary actively participated in procuring the will's specific terms, not just arranging for its creation.
Facts:
- Hazel Mann, the decedent, had two nephews: Roy Laird Smith, who lived nearby, and Norman Van Gorp, who lived in Missouri.
- Mann shared a very close, lifelong relationship with Smith, whom she had helped raise and saw on a daily or weekly basis.
- In the early 1970s, Mann began to show signs of mental and physical decline, including forgetfulness, an inability to manage her finances, and poor self-care.
- In November 1975, on the advice of Mann's physician and a social worker, Smith became the conservator of Mann's person and estate.
- Mann's physician, Dr. Lee, diagnosed her with senile dementia secondary to arteriosclerosis, which caused a variable mental state with periods of confusion and periods of lucidity.
- On July 17, 1976, Mann executed a will that left the bulk of her estate to Smith.
- Smith had brought Mann to his friend, attorney Robert Williams, to have the will prepared and was present on the premises during its execution.
Procedural Posture:
- Norman Van Gorp, the contestant, challenged the will of Hazel Mann in a state trial court.
- A jury found that Mann was of unsound mind when she executed the will and that its execution was obtained through the undue influence of Roy Laird Smith.
- Based on the jury's verdict, the trial court entered a judgment revoking the probate of the will.
- Roy Laird Smith, the claimant and executor, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a jury verdict revoking probate of a will supported by substantial evidence of testamentary incapacity and undue influence where the testator, despite being elderly, forgetful, and under a conservatorship, was described as lucid during the will's execution, and the main beneficiary's involvement was limited to facilitating the meeting with an attorney?
Opinions:
Majority - Kline, P.J.
No. The jury's verdict is not supported by substantial evidence of either testamentary incapacity or undue influence. Old age, forgetfulness, and even a conservatorship are insufficient by themselves to establish a lack of testamentary capacity, which must be determined at the moment of execution. All attesting witnesses testified that Hazel Mann was alert and understood the nature of her act when she signed the will. Furthermore, to raise a presumption of undue influence, a contestant must show active participation in procuring the will's substantive terms, which goes beyond merely taking the testator to an attorney, being present at the execution, or having a motive and opportunity to influence. Here, Smith did not participate in the discussions about the will's contents, and the will's disposition was not unnatural given his close, lifelong relationship with Mann.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high evidentiary standard required to overturn a will and serves as a strong defense of testamentary freedom. The court clarifies that appellate courts will rigorously review jury verdicts in will contests to prevent them from being based on the jury's own sense of fairness rather than on substantial evidence of incapacity or coercion. The decision provides a clear distinction between permissible facilitation of a will's creation and impermissible 'active procurement' that triggers a presumption of undue influence. This precedent makes it more difficult for will contestants to prevail based on circumstantial evidence of a beneficiary's opportunity and motive alone.
