In re the Estate of Paigo
53 A.D. 3d 836, 863 N.Y.S.2d 508, 2008 NY Slip Op 6250 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Summary judgment in a contested probate proceeding is inappropriate when there is conflicting evidence or the possibility of drawing conflicting inferences regarding the decedent's testamentary capacity or the exercise of undue influence.
Facts:
- In late November 2005, the decedent began suffering from symptoms related to multiple brain tumors.
- On December 23, 2005, the decedent underwent a craniotomy (brain surgery) to biopsy and debulk a brain mass.
- Prior to the surgery, the decedent's sister, petitioner, brought him a will she had prepared, but he refused to sign it, stating it was not drafted as he specified.
- On December 27, 2005, four days after surgery and one day after being released from intensive care, the decedent signed a new will drafted by petitioner.
- Petitioner, who is a beneficiary and the named executor, drafted the will, arranged the execution ceremony, and procured the witnesses.
- The will does not mention one of the decedent's two daughters, who are his only children.
- Medical records from the time of the will's execution noted that the decedent suffered from 'intermittent confusion,' was 'impulsive,' and 'did not retain information.'
- An attorney from the law firm where petitioner worked as office manager was minimally involved, but the decedent received no independent legal advice.
Procedural Posture:
- The decedent died in June 2006.
- Petitioner, the decedent's sister, offered the will for probate in the Surrogate’s Court of Rensselaer County.
- Respondents, the decedent's two daughters, filed objections to the will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, improper execution, undue influence, and fraud.
- Petitioner moved for summary judgment in the Surrogate's Court, seeking to dismiss all of the respondents' objections.
- The Surrogate’s Court denied petitioner's motion for summary judgment, finding that triable issues of fact existed.
- Petitioner, as the appellant, appealed the Surrogate's Court's denial of her motion to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
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 conflicting evidence regarding a decedent's cognitive state after brain surgery and a beneficiary's significant involvement in preparing and executing a will create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment on claims of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence?
Opinions:
Majority - Stein, J.
Yes. Conflicting evidence about a decedent's mental state and a beneficiary's role in the will's creation raises triable issues of fact that make summary judgment inappropriate. While the proponent of a will can present prima facie evidence of capacity through witness testimony and affidavits, this can be rebutted by medical records and other testimony showing confusion and a lack of understanding. Here, medical records noting the decedent's confusion and impulsiveness, combined with the lack of evidence that he knew the extent of his property or provided for all natural objects of his bounty (his daughters), create a question of fact regarding testamentary capacity. Similarly, undue influence can be demonstrated by circumstantial evidence of motive, opportunity, and the actual exercise of influence. The petitioner's actions—drafting the will from which she benefits, arranging its execution shortly after decedent's brain surgery, and procuring witnesses and a non-specialist attorney from her own firm—are sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether she constrained the decedent to act against his own free will.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high bar for granting summary judgment in contested probate proceedings, particularly on the subjective issues of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The court emphasizes that where evidence is conflicting—pitting witness attestations against medical records and suspicious circumstances—the matter is best resolved by a trier of fact at trial, not by a judge on summary judgment. The decision highlights the significance of circumstantial evidence in undue influence claims, especially when a beneficiary is deeply involved in the will's procurement. This precedent serves as a caution against resolving complex factual disputes about a testator's mental state and volition without a full hearing.
