Estate of Oakley v. Stewart
1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 420, 936 S.W.2d 259 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To invalidate a will for lack of testamentary capacity, the contestant must present evidence that the testator lacked a sound mind at the precise moment the will was executed. Evidence of a prior or intermittent mental condition, particularly one caused by temporary factors like medication or hospitalization, is insufficient to meet this burden.
Facts:
- Dr. Lawrence Grossman began treating Guy Oakley in 1966.
- In 1988, Dr. Grossman observed that the ninety-four-year-old Oakley was confused and disoriented, particularly while hospitalized and on medication.
- In June 1989, Oakley was hospitalized and found to be confused. He left against medical advice due to the hospital's integrated nursing staff.
- In July 1989, Oakley was hospitalized again for a stomach resection, during which Dr. Grossman found him to be confused, difficult to reason with, and, in his opinion, not mentally competent.
- On October 4, 1989, Guy Oakley executed his will.
- Dr. Grossman saw Oakley several times in 1990 and again found him to be confused and disoriented, especially when on medication.
Procedural Posture:
- Contestants challenged the will of Guy Oakley in the Circuit Court of Dickson County, the trial court.
- At the conclusion of the contestants' case, the trial judge granted a directed verdict for the proponents of the will.
- The contestants (appellants) appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- After failing to file a trial transcript in a timely manner, the appellants notified the court they would proceed on the technical record alone.
- The case was appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals, directing it to reconsider the propriety of the directed verdict in light of the deposition of Dr. Lawrence Grossman.
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 doctor's testimony that a testator was intermittently confused and disoriented during hospitalizations before and after a will's execution, without direct evidence of the testator's mental state on the day of execution, create a sufficient issue of fact regarding testamentary capacity to overcome a directed verdict?
Opinions:
Majority - Cantrell, Judge
No. Evidence that a testator suffered from intermittent confusion linked to temporary causes like hospitalization does not satisfy the contestant's burden to prove lack of testamentary capacity at the specific time the will was executed. The burden is on the will contestant to prove that the testator possessed an unsound mind. Citing American Trust & Banking Co. v. Williams, the court emphasized that this burden requires evidence that 'at the very time of executing the will,' the testator did not understand the force and consequences of the act. Dr. Grossman's testimony only established Oakley's confusion during hospitalizations in July 1989 and in 1990, but offered no proof of his mental state on October 4, 1989, the day the will was signed. The doctor did not attribute Oakley's condition to a 'general, continuous, chronic, or progressive disease of the mind,' but rather to temporary causes, which has little probative value for determining capacity at the specific moment of execution.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the high evidentiary standard required to challenge a will on the grounds of testamentary incapacity in Tennessee. It highlights the importance of the 'lucid interval' doctrine, under which a person with fluctuating mental capacity can validly execute a will during a period of clarity. The ruling makes it significantly more difficult for contestants to succeed without direct evidence, such as testimony from attesting witnesses, concerning the testator's mental state at the exact moment of execution. Consequently, general medical testimony about a testator's periodic confusion, especially when not linked to a permanent degenerative condition, is unlikely to be sufficient to allow the issue to go to a jury.
Unlock the full brief for Estate of Oakley v. Stewart