Wills - Will Contests Flashcards
A will is invalid if the testator lacked
lacked mental capacity when the will was executed.
To prevail in a will contest for lack of capacity, the contestant must prove that the testator did NOT know or understand:
The nature and extent of his property;
The persons who are the natural objects of his bounty;
OR
The disposition he was making of his property.
Generally, there is a rebuttable presumption that the testator had
mental capacity.
A will is invalid if the testator executed the will
while under undue influence. Undue influence occurs when a person exerts such control and influence over the mind of the testator as to overcome the testator’s free will.
To prevail in a will contest for undue influence, the contestant must prove that:
The testator was susceptible to undue influence (e.g., health, finances, etc.);
The wrongdoer had the opportunity to exert undue influence over the testator;
The wrongdoer actively participated in drafting the will;
AND
The will evidences a result that appears to be the effect of undue influence
(e.g., an unnatural result occurred).
Generally, there is a rebuttable presumption of undue influence if
a confidential relationship existed between the alleged wrongdoer and the testator such that the circumstances surrounding the drafting of the will were suspicious (e.g., a close relative, attorney, or caretaker was involved in drafting the testator’s will).
A will is invalid if the will reflects the testator’s belief
in false information arising from another person’s fraudulent misrepresentation.
To prevail in a will contest for fraud, the contestant must prove:
A misrepresentation of a material fact was made to the testator;
The misrepresentation was made to induce reliance by the testator;
AND
The testator relied on the misrepresentation in disposing of his property by will.
Fraud may occur in the
inducement or execution of a will
Fraud in the inducement of a will
occurs when a person misrepresents a fact related to the instrument (usually regarding property or beneficiaries)
Fraud in the execution
occurs when a person misreps the contents or nature of the instrument executed by the testator
Most courts will permit modification of a will to conform to the testator’s intent if there is
clear and convincing evidence of a mistake (e.g., testator mistakenly leaves out an intended clause, typographical errors, etc.).
Some courts may modify an unambiguous term
to reflect the testator’s intent; however, most will NOT admit extrinsic evidence to do so (i.e., intent must be determined by the testator’s words and acts).
The purpose of a no-contest clause is
to discourage potential will contestants by forcing them to choose either:
The gift bestowed to them in the will if no contest action is filed;
OR
Nothing if their contest action fails.
How do majority v minority Jx’s treat no-contest clauses?
A minority of jurisdictions wholly enforce no-contest clauses while others strictly prohibit no-contest clauses as a matter of public policy.
Under the majority view, a no-contest clause is unenforceable IF probable cause exists for initiating the will contest action (i.e., contestant has a good faith and reasonable belief in challenging the will).
