The case involved a dispute over the estate of Wanda Wisniewski. After her death, her son, Christopher Wisniewski, challenged the admission of a 2013 will to probate, alleging that Wanda had lacked testamentary capacity and was unduly influenced by another son, Joseph Palermino. The 2013 will left Wanda’s entire estate to Joseph, in contrast to her 2010 will, which divided the estate evenly among her three children.
Wanda executed the 2013 will while suffering from advanced dementia and other health issues. The parties presented conflicting medical and lay testimony regarding her mental capacity. The trial court found that although Wanda had cognitive decline, she retained testamentary capacity at the time of executing the 2013 will.
Christopher also alleged that Joseph exerted undue influence over Wanda. Joseph lived with her, helped manage her finances, and accompanied her to attorney meetings. The court recognized that this created a confidential relationship, which could support an inference of undue influence if additional suspicious circumstances were present.
The trial court determined that although a confidential relationship existed, there was insufficient evidence to prove Joseph had dominated Wanda’s will. The court cited Wanda's independent interactions with her attorney and the lack of evidence that Joseph dictated the terms of the will. Witnesses testified that Wanda expressed her wishes without coercion.
The court admitted the 2013 will to probate. Christopher appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly evaluated the evidence and failed to apply proper presumptions about undue influence given the confidential relationship.
The Appellate Court of Connecticut upheld the trial court’s findings. It ruled that the trial court correctly applied the legal standards for testamentary capacity and undue influence. The appellate court emphasized that even with a confidential relationship, the burden remained on the contestant to establish undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence.
It found no error in the trial court's conclusion that Wanda had sufficient mental capacity and acted voluntarily when executing the 2013 will. The appellate court also upheld the finding that Joseph’s involvement did not rise to the level of coercion or manipulation.
The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment admitting the 2013 will to probate and rejecting the challenge based on undue influence and lack of capacity.
If you are involved in a will contest or suspect undue influence in the creation of a family member’s estate plan, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC handles estate disputes, probate litigation, and testamentary capacity challenges. Reach out to schedule a consultation and learn how our team can assist with your case.