Wilson v. Lane

Supreme Court of Georgia
279 Ga. 492, 614 S.E.2d 88 (2005)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Evidence of a testator's eccentricity, advanced age, physical frailty, or even a general diagnosis of dementia is insufficient to prove a lack of testamentary capacity. To invalidate a will, a challenger must present specific evidence demonstrating that at the time the will was executed, the testator was incapable of forming a decided and rational desire regarding the disposition of their property.

Facts:

In 1997, Jewel Jones Greer executed her last will and testament.
The will distributed Greer's property to 17 beneficiaries, including 16 blood-relatives and her caregiver, Katherine Lane.
Greer's drafting attorney believed she was mentally competent and emphatically selected every beneficiary at the time the will was signed.
In the years around the will's execution, Greer exhibited eccentric behaviors, such as an irrational fear of her house flooding, difficulty with personal care, and calling the fire department for a non-existent fire.
In 1996, a year before the will was executed, Greer's physician wrote a letter stating she had 'senile dementia' to assist her with a telephone bill.
In 1998, a few months after the will was signed, Katherine Lane filed a guardianship petition for Greer, stating she could not manage her own affairs, in order to satisfy government agency requirements for her to remain in her home.
Jewel Jones Greer passed away in 2000.

Procedural Posture:

After Jewel Jones Greer's death, Executrix Katherine Lane offered Greer's 1997 will for probate in the Jasper County Superior Court, a trial court.
Floyd Wilson filed a caveat, challenging the will on the grounds that Greer lacked testamentary capacity.
A jury trial was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Wilson, finding that Greer did lack testamentary capacity.
Lane filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), asking the trial court judge to set aside the jury's verdict.
The trial court granted Lane’s motion for JNOV, effectively reversing the jury's finding and upholding the will.
Wilson, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of the JNOV to the Supreme Court of Georgia.

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 evidence showing that a testator was elderly, exhibited eccentric behaviors, had a prior note from a physician mentioning 'senile dementia,' and became the subject of a guardianship petition a few months after executing a will, constitute legally sufficient evidence to support a jury's finding of a lack of testamentary capacity?

Opinions:

Majority - Fletcher, Chief Justice

No. Evidence of eccentricity, advanced age, or a vague diagnosis of dementia is insufficient to demonstrate a lack of testamentary capacity without specific proof that the testator was incapable of forming a decided and rational desire as to the disposition of their property at the time of execution. The court reasoned that the law protects the right of the aged and feeble to make a will, and eccentric habits do not equate to incapacity. The expert testimony against the will was equivocal and not based on a personal examination, the physician’s earlier note was explained as being for a non-medical purpose, and the subsequent guardianship petition did not prove incapacity at the time the will was signed. The caveators failed to present any evidence directly showing Greer could not rationally decide who should inherit her property.

Dissenting - Carley, Justice

Yes. A jury's finding of testamentary incapacity should be upheld when there is an evidentiary basis for its verdict, and the trial court erred in substituting its judgment for the jury's. The dissent argued that the majority improperly dismissed the cumulative weight of the caveators' evidence. When viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the combination of expert testimony about Alzheimer's-type dementia, a physician's affidavit for the guardianship petition stating Greer was permanently incapacitated, and her documented irrational behaviors and disorientation provided a sufficient basis for a jury to conclude she lacked the ability to form a rational desire regarding her property.

Analysis:

This decision significantly strengthens the presumption of testamentary capacity in Georgia, making it more difficult for challengers to invalidate a will. It clarifies that general evidence of mental decline or medical diagnoses like dementia is legally insufficient without a direct link to the testator's inability to form a rational plan for their property at the moment of the will's execution. The ruling emphasizes the finality of a properly executed will and protects a testator's wishes from being overturned based on evidence of mere eccentricity, old age, or speculative medical opinions.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Wilson v. Lane (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"