Riddell v. Edwards
2001 WL 1173975, 2001 Alas. LEXIS 138, 32 P.3d 4 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
There is no constitutional right to a jury trial in a will contest because such proceedings are equitable in nature. A will is invalid for lack of testamentary capacity if the testator, at the time of execution, did not have sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature and extent of their property, the natural objects of their bounty, and the nature of the testamentary act.
Facts:
- On August 14, 1992, Lillie M. Rahm-Riddell executed a will that left the majority of her estate to her brother, Irvin H. Edwards, and other family members.
- In the mid-1990s, Lillie, then in her nineties, met Robert J. Riddell, who began as her handyman. Their relationship developed, and friends observed that Riddell began to isolate Lillie and was abusive towards them.
- In April 1995, Lillie revoked a power of attorney held by her daughter and transferred funds to new bank accounts to which Riddell had access. Lillie appeared confused about these transactions.
- Riddell married Lillie on May 1, 1995, while a petition for conservatorship over Lillie, filed by her daughter, was pending.
- In January 1996, a court appointed a public guardian as Lillie's conservator due to her diminished capacity. Subsequently, a different court granted a domestic violence petition against Riddell, finding he had abused Lillie.
- After Lillie was placed in an assisted living facility, Riddell located her, removed her from the facility without authorization, and moved her to Oregon, refusing to reveal her location to the court.
- On January 29, 1997, while in Oregon, Lillie executed a new will prepared by Riddell. This will left her entire estate to Riddell and disinherited her brother, daughter, and grandchildren. Multiple doctors had diagnosed Lillie with dementia or Alzheimer's disease by this time.
- Lillie died in Oregon on September 4, 1997.
Procedural Posture:
- In November 1997, Irvin H. Edwards filed an application in superior court to probate Lillie's 1992 will.
- In February 1998, Robert J. Riddell filed a competing application in superior court to probate Lillie's 1997 will.
- Riddell moved to dismiss Edwards's application, which Edwards opposed by challenging the 1997 will's validity based on lack of capacity and undue influence.
- The superior court denied Riddell's motion to dismiss.
- Riddell's subsequent demand for a jury trial was denied by the superior court.
- After a bench trial, the superior court found the 1997 will invalid due to lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, and admitted the 1992 will to probate.
- Riddell (appellant) appealed the superior court's judgment to the Alaska 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:
Is a will invalid due to lack of testamentary capacity when evidence shows the testator, suffering from dementia, was unable to understand the nature and extent of her property or the proper objects of her bounty at the time of the will's execution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Bryner
Yes, a will is invalid if the testator lacked testamentary capacity at the time of execution. The court first held there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in a will contest. The Alaska Constitution preserves the right to a jury trial only as it existed at common law, and will contests are statutory proceedings that are equitable, not legal, in nature. On the merits, the court affirmed the finding that Lillie's 1997 will was invalid. Applying the established three-part test for testamentary capacity, the court found overwhelming evidence that Lillie was incompetent when she signed the 1997 will. This evidence included testimony from multiple doctors confirming her dementia and/or Alzheimer's disease, prior judicial findings of her incompetence in a conservatorship proceeding, and testimony that she was confused about her property and relationships. Because Lillie lacked the capacity to understand the nature of her property and the objects of her bounty, she lacked the requisite testamentary capacity, rendering the 1997 will invalid and leaving the properly executed 1992 will in effect.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary standard for upholding a will when the testator's cognitive abilities are severely compromised by a degenerative disease like Alzheimer's. It solidifies that a prior judicial finding of incompetence, such as in a conservatorship proceeding, serves as powerful evidence against testamentary capacity. The ruling also clarifies that will contests in Alaska are presumptively bench trials, as there is no constitutional right to a jury in such equitable proceedings, which can streamline probate litigation by avoiding the complexities of a jury.
Unlock the full brief for Riddell v. Edwards