Justa G. Guido V. Rural Progress Administration, C/O FAUSTINO AGUILAR, Manager, Rural Progress Administration G.R. No. L-2089, 31 October 1949, EN BANC, TUASON, J.
a. Where law provides ambiguous rule that judges are to apply, judges will i. Take that general rule and develop a multi-part test in the hope that the test will solve the problem generated by the vagueness of the rule ii. Consciously/unconsciously use independent/unstated/external criteria for deciding cases under the general rule b. Still end up deciding cases in predictable wayswill depend on how the testator distributed assets in the will i. The more that a testator’s disposition deviates from the pattern of intestacy, the more likely that a judge will find a testator lacked testamentary capacity ii. Inconsistent with commitment to testamentary freedom c. UPC 2-501: an individual of 18 years or more who is of sound mind may make a will d. Rest. Third of Property 8.1: 3-part test i. A person must have mental capacity to make or revoke a will ii. Testamentary capacity: testator must be capable of knowing and understanding in a general way the nature and extent of his or her property, the natural objects of his or her bounty, and the disposition that he or she is making of that property iii. And must be capable of relating these elements to one another and forming an orderly desire regarding the disposition of the property e. Barnes v. Marshall SC Mo 1971 i. Witness testified testator was of unsound mind ii. Medical testimonyunsound mind iii. With respect to his daughter, gave only $5 out of $500kdeviating from intestacy 1. Proves not operating under a mistake about life/death of child$5 was gift he wanted to make f. Wilson v. Lane SC Ga 2005 i. Person mentally capable if she has sufficient intellect to enable her to have a decided and rational desire as to the disposition of her property ii. Jewel GreerEccentric, aged, and peculiar but understood and selected every beneficiary 1. Early stages of Alzheimer’s, need of guardianship 2. 16 of beneficiaries were close relatives, one was caretaker 3. Close to intestacy distributiontestamentary capacity g. Dougherty v. Rubenstein Md 2007 i. Insane delusion rulewill invalidate will for lack of capacity if delusion produced the disposition made in the will ii. Delusional when held in the face of evidence that to a rational person would refute the beliefbut when is it insane? iii. Will left son out iv. Here, delusion not inexplicable or insaneangry at son for sending to boarding house, believed he stole from him 1. Either from mental illness or from anger v. Significant deviation from pattern of intestacy, will gave him nothing vi. For there to be an insane delusion, person must suffer from something we can call insanity and delusion is product of insanity h. Gonsalves v. Superior Court CoA Cal. 1993 i. Duty of atty to determine testamentary capacity of a client seeking to make a will? 1. Lucas v. Hand: intended beneficiaries can recover from lawyer when will is negligently drafted for what they would have gotten if it was drafted correctle ii. Ct: atty liability should not extend in favor of those disinherited by testator without testamentary capacity 1. Disinherited person has a remedychallenging capacity 2. A different result would impose a burden on the T&E bar that would shift to clientswould then have to prove their sanity i. 3-407 of UPC: In contested cases, contestants of a will have the burden of establishing lack of testamentary intent or capacity, undue influence, fraud, duress, mistake, or revocation
Class 18
A. Undue Influence: confidential relationship between influencer and testator + suspicious
circumstances a. Where lawyer for executor is confident of victory, incentive to get executor to settle is reduced b. Lawyer for executor must know that if case doesn’t settlereduce size of net probate estate i. Opposite incentives c. Usually brought when beneficiary of the will in a confidential relationship + suspicious circumstances d. Increased probability when testamentary capacity is also dubious e. Haynes v. First Nat’l State Bank of NJ SC NJ 1981 i. Undue influence = mental, moral, or physical exertion which has destroyed the free agency of a testator by preventing the testator from following the dictates of his own mind and will and instead accepting domination and influence of another ii. With 2 factors, easy to findlook almost entirely to suspicious circumstancesoften case where a lawyer gets the testator to make a gift to the lawyer or gets the testator to make a gift to the lawyer’s client(s) 1. What makes it suspicious is pattern of donation in the willgift is non-trivial (MRPC 1.8clawyer shall not solicit any substantial gift from a client) iii. 1.7 concurrent conflict representing both child and mother, 1.8 violated by directing gifts to his clientsstrong presumption of undue influencewill invalid f. Will of Moses SC Miss. 1969 i. Will made atty principal beneficiary, testatrix both dated him and used as atty ii. Moses did seek independent counsel, but advice was not meaningfullawyer wrote down what she told him, did not really advise iii. Undue influence iv. Dissentshould be allowed to dispose of property as she intended, no evidence atty told her anything/influenced her B. Fraud a. Difficult to prove because it has so many elements, but often a secondary part of other claims i. False statement of fact ii. Known to be false by the speaker iii. Relevant to the transaction in question (material) iv. Made with intent of deceiving person being defrauded v. Must be successful/believed vi. Must cause person deceived to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do that has financial/criminal repercussions C. Intentional Interference with Expected Inheritance a. Used to be thought that mere expectancy has no value as a matter of law, because testator remains free to change their mind about giftsIIEI gives expectancy cash value i. Expectation of receiving inheritance ii. Intentional interference with that expectancy by 3d party iii. Independently wrongful or tortious conduct other than interference with inheritance iv. Reasonable certainty that would get inheritance but-for tortious interference v. Damages b. Unavailable to people who could have gotten inheritance out of probate process rather than tort suit c. Takes finality that used to attach to distributed estates and call it into question d. Why not just use fraud claim? e. Beckwith v. Dahl Cal. Coa 2012 D. Nina Zagat given estate handling of Johnson / No Contest Clauses a. Seward decided to leave everything to late in life second wife, excluded children b. Get from testator letters to kids stating intentions or video that conveys that person has testamentary capacity and is not subject to undue influence, makes settlement in favor of estate more likely c. Make sure there were people who knew testator well and were willing to go on the record about his capacity d. No-contest clauseif anyone contests this will, that person is disinherited i. UPC 3-905unenforceable if probable cause exists for instituting proceedings ii. Res 3d 8.5provision in a will purporting to rescind a donative transfer to a person who challenges validity is enforceable unless probable cause existed to instituting the proceeding iii. What is probably cause for challenging a will? exists when, at the time of instituting the proceeding, there was evidence that would lead a reasonable person, properly informed and advised, to conclude that there was a substantial likelihood that the challenge would be successful. A factor that bears on the existence of probably cause is whether the beneficiary relied upon the advice of independent legal counsel sought in good faith after a full disclosure of facts. The mere fact that the person mounting the challenge was represented by counsel is not controlling however since the institution of a legal proceeding challenging a donative transfer normally involves representation 1. Challenges are overwhelmingly likely to fail 2. If you lose challenge, lose inheritancecosts reduced to the estate E. No Contest Clauses p. 467 a. Elective share challenges aren’t affected by a no-contest clausedon’t violate clause by seeking an ES b. Rule against perpetuities challenges are finedon’t violate clause c. Construction challengeDoesn’t affect no contest clause d. Executor challengenot affected by NC clause e. Joint tenancy determinationnot affected by NC clause f. Creditor’s claim against the estateprobably unaffected by NC clause g. Action against sister for tortious interference with inheritancetend to be brought after probate is closed h. Determination of whether beneficiary of retirement accountwill be affected by NC clause i. Seeks to probate subsequent will leaving him moreis affected by the NC clause j. Cooperates with lawyers contesting the will on behalf of a child receiving a smaller sharenot affected by NC, HE is not contesting the will F. Could address most of these situations in a drafted NC clause except for the ES claim and RaP
Justa G. Guido V. Rural Progress Administration, C/O FAUSTINO AGUILAR, Manager, Rural Progress Administration G.R. No. L-2089, 31 October 1949, EN BANC, TUASON, J.