Harper v. Watkins
670 S.W.2d 611, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 683 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will executed during a lucid interval by a testator who experiences intermittent mental incapacity will be upheld if there is clear and convincing evidence of competency at the time of execution. Furthermore, a normal parent-child relationship does not, by itself, create a presumption of undue influence; such a presumption requires evidence of dominion and control or other suspicious circumstances.
Facts:
- Eligie C. Watkins, Sr. was confined to a wheelchair due to a severe back injury and required strong pain medication that caused intermittent periods of confusion and hallucinations.
- Following the death of his wife in 1978, a dispute arose between Mr. Watkins, Sr. and his three sons regarding his wife's estate; his sons wanted him to waive his interest, which he vehemently refused to do.
- Mr. Watkins, Sr.'s two daughters, Dovie Lee Watkins Harper and Bertha Watkins Belcher, sided with their father in the family property dispute, creating significant friction between the father and his sons.
- Due to his physical disability, Mr. Watkins, Sr. requested that his son-in-law, James Harper, be appointed as his conservator, which occurred on November 28, 1978.
- On February 12, 1979, Mr. Watkins, Sr. requested that his daughter, Dovie Lee Harper, take him to his attorney's office to prepare a will.
- At the law office, Mr. Watkins, Sr. instructed his attorney to draft a will leaving his entire estate to his two daughters and explicitly excluding his three sons due to the ongoing family dispute.
- Dovie Lee Harper was present during the will's drafting at her father's request but remained silent and did not participate in the discussion.
- The will was executed by Mr. Watkins, Sr. and witnessed by his attorney, Calvin Turner, and another attorney, Michael Ferrell, both of whom, along with a legal secretary, testified that Mr. Watkins, Sr. was lucid, rational, and not under the influence of medication.
Procedural Posture:
- The executor, James Harper, offered the will of Eligie C. Watkins, Sr. for probate.
- The decedent's three sons (contestants) challenged the will's validity in the trial court.
- A jury in the circuit court returned a general verdict finding the will to be invalid.
- The trial court judge denied the proponent's motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, entering a judgment against the will.
- The proponent of the will, James Harper, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the contestants present sufficient material evidence to support a jury's finding that the will of Eligie C. Watkins, Sr. was invalid due to either lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence?
Opinions:
Majority - Conner, Judge.
No. The contestants failed to provide sufficient material evidence to invalidate the will on grounds of either undue influence or lack of testamentary capacity. Regarding undue influence, no presumption arises against the beneficiaries because the normal parent-child relationship is not, per se, a confidential relationship requiring a showing of independent advice; there must be additional proof of dominion and control, which was absent here. No presumption arose against the conservator, James Harper, because he was not a beneficiary, was not involved in procuring the will, and the testator's decision to disinherit his sons was a natural result of their family dispute, not a suspicious circumstance. Regarding testamentary capacity, the law requires competence at the specific moment of the will's execution. While the contestants showed Mr. Watkins, Sr. suffered from intermittent incapacity due to medication, the proponent provided overwhelming, uncontradicted testimony from multiple disinterested witnesses that on the day the will was executed, the testator was in a lucid interval, free from pain and medication, and fully understood the nature and consequences of his actions. This specific evidence of capacity at the critical time outweighs general evidence of periodic incapacity.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary standard required to overturn a will, particularly under the "lucid interval" doctrine. It clarifies that general allegations of a testator's periodic mental weakness are insufficient to overcome specific, credible testimony from disinterested witnesses about the testator's lucidity at the exact time of the will's execution. The case also sharply distinguishes a normal familial relationship from a legal fiduciary relationship for purposes of presuming undue influence, thereby protecting natural dispositions of property to children who are close to a parent, even when other children are disinherited due to family conflict.
Unlock the full brief for Harper v. Watkins