Joe Whitcomb
Challenging a Will's Validity
If you are in the midst of estate planning and you want to be sure your will won't be declared invalid in the future, what should you be on the lookout for?
In two separate and intriguing cases, heirs are fiercely disputing the validity of wills. The key parties involved are Susanne Moye Daniel, C. Michael Moye, Barbara Moye, and Jessica M. McDill. These cases have been consolidated for one opinion, bringing together the arguments and claims of the heirs.
Testator's Alleged Incapacity
The heirs in these cases contended that the wills in question were invalid due to either a lack of a testator's testamentary capacity or undue influence. However, the circuit court initially dismissed the cases, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This decision was later reversed by the Supreme Court, which mandated the removal of administration of the estates from the probate court. Furthermore, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the heirs had met the statutory pleading requirements to contest the wills.
One of the cases, Daniel v. Moye, involved extensive discovery and litigation that stretched over a period of 18 months. The litigants petitioned for the removal of Michael as the personal representative of Claude's estate, alleging misconduct. Unfortunately, the circuit court ruled that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the challenge to Claude's will, leading the contestants to appeal this decision.
What is Undue Influence?
Undue influence refers to a situation where an individual exerts pressure or manipulates someone else to make decisions that go against their own free will or best interests, particularly in the context of creating or altering a will. It typically involves a person with a position of power or authority who exploits that relationship to gain control over the testator and influence their testamentary choices. This can include tactics such as coercion, threats, deceit, or taking advantage of the testator's vulnerability, dependency, or weakened mental capacity. Undue influence is a serious legal concern as it undermines the validity and fairness of a will.
what is testamentary capacity?
Testamentary capacity refers to the legal requirement that an individual must possess in order to create or modify a valid will. It is the mental capability and understanding necessary for someone to make informed decisions about their estate and distribute their assets according to their wishes. This capacity involves the ability to understand the nature and extent of one's property, the relationships between the individuals involved, and the implications of including or excluding certain beneficiaries. Without testamentary capacity, a will may be deemed invalid.
In the case of Bessie's will, the contestants accused Bessie of being of unsound mind and therefore had a lack of testamentary capacity. Tnd claimed that Michael and Barbara had exerted undue influence. Surprisingly, the probate court did not enter any order regarding the petition for removal and contest of Bessie's will. However, the circuit court received a duplicate copy of the petition, and the contestants took the opportunity to file an amended petition. In their amended petition, the contestants of Bessie's will boldly requested that the will be declared invalid, with letters testamentary being revoked, and a successor personal representative being appointed.
How do we define testamentary capacity?
Testamentary capacity definition refers to the legal and mental capacity that an individual must possess in order to create a valid will. It means that the person making the will, known as the testator, must have the cognitive ability to understand the nature and extent of their property, the significance of making a will, and how their property will be distributed after their death. Additionally, the testator must have an understanding of who their beneficiaries are and the relationships they have with them. Having testamentary capacity is crucial to ensure that the testator's wishes are accurately reflected in their will and to prevent any challenges to its validity.
The proponents of Bessie's will, on the other hand, argued that the right to contest the will belonged solely to Claude and not his children. In response, the contestants of Bessie's will contended that the probate of Bessie's will was defective since Claude and other heirs were not provided with proper notice. The proponents of Bessie's will even went so far as to file a motion to dismiss the claims made by Claude's children. However, the circuit court denied this motion to dismiss, allowing the contestants to proceed with their case.
A Testamentary Capacity Checklist
1. Age: The testator must be of legal age, typically 18 years or older, to have testamentary capacity.
2. Mental Capacity: The testator should have the mental capacity to understand the nature and extent of their property and the consequences of making a will.
3. Understanding of the Will: The testator should comprehend that they are creating a legal document that dictates how their assets will be distributed after their death.
4. Knowledge of Family and Assets: The testator should have an understanding of their family members, including their relationships and identities, and their assets and their value.
5. Free from Undue Influence: The testator should be free from any outside coercion, manipulation, or pressure that may influence their decisions regarding the distribution of their assets.
6. Rational Decision-Making: The testator should have the ability to make logical and reasoned decisions regarding the distribution of their assets.
7. Capacity to Execute and Sign: The testator should possess the physical ability to sign and execute the will, either independently or with assistance.
8. Absence of Mental Disorders: The testator should not suffer from any mental disorders or conditions that may impair their ability to make a rational and informed will.
9. Consistent Testamentary Intent: The testator's intent to create a will and distribute assets should be consistent throughout the entire process of executing the will.
10. Witness Testimony: The presence of competent witnesses who can affirm the testator's understanding, capacity, and free will is essential to ensure the validity of the will.
11. Consultation with Legal Experts: While not a legal requirement, seeking the advice and guidance of legal professionals can help ensure that all legal formalities are met and that the testator's wishes are accurately reflected in the will.
The proponents of Bessie's will take further legal action by filing a motion for reconsideration. In addition, they file another motion to dismiss, arguing that the circuit court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. On the other hand, the contestants of Bessie's will respond by filing an amended petition requesting the removal of the administration of Bessie's estate to the circuit court.
Subject matter jurisdiction
The blog post also mentions two related cases, namely Daniel v. Moye and Newman v. Savas. In Daniel v. Moye, the contestants of Bessie's will appeal the circuit court's ruling that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The circuit court's ruling was based on the absence of a valid transfer of the will contest from the probate court to the circuit court. The contestants argued that the circuit court made an error by refusing to enter an order to remove the administration of Claude's estate from the probate court to the circuit court. The circuit court deemed the petition to remove the administration of Claude's estate as invalid because it was filed in the probate court instead of the circuit court. However, the contestants assert that the petition was also filed in the circuit court, which should have invoked the circuit court's subject-matter jurisdiction.
In the case of Newman v. Savas, the circuit court determined that the filing of a copy of the will-contest complaint in the circuit court properly invoked the circuit court's subject-matter jurisdiction.
These two cases, Daniel v. Moye and Newman v. Savas, involve heirs contesting the validity of wills. In Daniel v. Moye, the contestants argue that the circuit court erred in dismissing their complaint contesting the validity of Claude's will. The circuit court ruled that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because no valid complaint contesting the validity of Claude's will had been filed.
The contestants asserted that they fulfilled all the necessary requirements outlined in § 43–8–199 in their pleadings. On the other hand, the proponents of Claude's will adopt the analysis and conclusions made by the circuit court. The circuit court's ruling was primarily based on the contestants' failure to name adverse parties, their omission of any mention of contesting the will under other provisions, and their failure to state whether the will had been previously admitted to probate. Additionally, the circuit court deemed that the contestants did not initiate an adversarial proceeding. However, the contestants argue that they did indeed allege their interest in the will and filed their petition within the required six-month timeframe after the probate of the will. Furthermore, the circuit court ruled that the contestants failed to serve Mike Moye, one of the proponents of the will.
In the case of Simpson v. Moye, which the circuit court and the proponents of Claude's will rely on, the contestant of Miss Simpson's will and codicils filed a document with the probate court in an attempt to have the probate of the contested will denied and the contest transferred to the circuit court. However, the document failed to include the names of respondents or state the contestant's interest in the will. Consequently, the contest was dismissed by the circuit court, which concluded that the defects in the document could not be rectified through amendment. The Alabama Supreme Court upheld this dismissal, stating that the pleading of the contestant did not comply with the requirements specified in § 43–8–199. Additionally, the court noted that the contestant failed to name adverse parties, essentially indicating a request to withhold service of process. However, the present case differs from Simpson in several aspects. The contestants of Claude's will explicitly state in their petition that they are heirs at law and next of kin of the deceased. They also allege that they have not previously contested the will. Moreover, the document argues that the mere filing of a complaint constitutes the commencement of the action and emphasizes that the contestants did not intentionally interfere with service.
The case delves into the specific requirements for filing a will contest according to § 43–8–199. Although the contestants of Claude's will did not explicitly state that they had not previously filed an action contesting the will, the court determines that this omission does not render their complaint invalid. The court further concludes that the contestants have met the requirement of filing the will contest in the same county where the will was admitted to probate and within the stipulated six-month timeframe. Additionally, the court finds that the contestants of Claude's will have sufficiently named Michael and Barbara as actual adverse parties. Ultimately, the court determines that the contestants have satisfied the pleading requirements outlined in § 43–8–199.
Furthermore, the document discusses the contestants' claim for an accounting of inter vivos transfers from Claude to the proponents of his will. The court determines that once the circuit court acquires jurisdiction over the administration of Claude's estate, it would have subject-matter jurisdiction over this claim.