In Re Estate of Mayes
1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 294, 843 S.W.2d 418 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A judgment probating a will in solemn form cannot be questioned except by attacking the judgment for extrinsic fraud in its procurement. The existence of a conservatorship over the testator at the time of the will's execution does not, by itself, constitute an adjudication of mental incapacity to make a valid will.
Facts:
- Between 1956 and 1969, Hazel Keck Mayes was hospitalized four times for psychiatric issues, diagnosed with schizophrenic reactions.
- In 1968, a court appointed a conservator to manage Mayes's substantial financial assets.
- Following her final hospital discharge in October 1969, Mayes's condition was described as 'in remission,' and there is no evidence of further mental or emotional problems until her death.
- On August 29, 1983, while still under the conservatorship, Mayes executed her last will and testament.
- The will bequeathed her estate to nineteen of her relatives, explicitly acknowledging that she was not including all of her heirs.
- Mayes died on January 19, 1990, at which time the conservatorship was still in effect.
Procedural Posture:
- Allan J. Ware, Jr., the executor of Hazel Keck Mayes's estate, filed a petition in the Knox County Chancery Court to have her 1983 will admitted to probate in solemn form.
- All seventy of Mayes's legal heirs were personally served with process and copies of the petition and will.
- After hearings on July 20 and August 3, 1990, at which no heirs objected, the Chancery Court entered an order on August 6, 1990, admitting the will to probate in solemn form.
- On August 15, 1990, several nieces and nephews (plaintiffs) who were excluded from the will filed a motion to vacate the judgment, alleging Mayes lacked testamentary capacity.
- The plaintiffs later amended their petition, adding more relatives as plaintiffs and arguing their failure to object was due to excusable neglect.
- The Chancery Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to vacate, finding no evidence of fraud in the procurement of the probate order.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the Chancery Court's denial to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee (the court whose opinion is being briefed).
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 an executor's failure to allege a testator's past mental health issues and current conservatorship in a petition for probate in solemn form constitute extrinsic fraud sufficient to set aside the resulting judgment of probate?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, J.
No. The executor's failure to disclose the testator's past mental condition does not constitute extrinsic fraud sufficient to set aside a will probated in solemn form. A judgment of probate in solemn form is final and can only be set aside for extrinsic fraud—fraud that is collateral to the issues tried and prevents a party from presenting their case. Here, the executor's omission, if anything, would be intrinsic fraud because Mayes's competency was a central issue that could have been litigated, and information about her conservatorship was a matter of public record. Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for not objecting in a timely manner, as their delay was due to their own failure to retain counsel promptly. They also lacked a meritorious defense, as being under a conservatorship does not per se render a person incapable of executing a valid will; testamentary capacity is determined at the moment the will is executed, and evidence of mental health issues from 14 years prior is too remote to be dispositive.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the finality of a will probated in solemn form under Tennessee law, establishing a high bar for any subsequent challenges. It clarifies the critical distinction between intrinsic fraud (related to the subject matter of the litigation, such as perjured testimony or concealed evidence) and extrinsic fraud (conduct which prevents a party from having their day in court), holding that only the latter can be used to set aside the probate judgment. The ruling also affirms the important legal principle that a person's rights are not entirely extinguished by a conservatorship; specifically, it protects the testamentary freedom of individuals under conservatorships by confirming that they are not presumed to lack the capacity to make a will.
Unlock the full brief for In Re Estate of Mayes