Estate of Haynsworth FACTS: T (Haynsworth), a wealthy widower ($6 million estate), at age 95 executed 3 wills in 1993 (February, July, and November). He died 2 years later in 1995 at age 97. In 1992, it sounds like Ts Niece began to be quite involved in Ts affairs. FEBRUARY 1993 (WILL 1): drafted by long-time attorney (Blum). Bulk of estate to various charities (consistent with prior wills) and a 5% bequest to Blum (Niece claims that Blum never provided T. The various charities are proponents of this will.

CIRCA MARCH-APRIL 1993: Sounds like Niece convinced T to purchase a house. Because T used an attorney recommended by Nieces husband, Blum became concerned and petitioned the court to have T declared incapacitated.

MAY 1993: Court holds a hearing and adjudicates T incapacitated as of May 18, 1993 based on medical testimony that T has organic brain syndrome (cant recall the year, his city of residence, and deceased wifes name).

JULY 1993 (WILL 2): T executes another will that leaves less to charity and more to Niece.

NOVEMBER 1993 (WILL 3): Its not clear what November 1993 says. NIECE: wants July 1993 to control CHARITIES: want February 1993 will to control (less Blums undue influence).

TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY AND UNDUE INFLUENCE Many will challenges involve both claims of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. Did Blum unduly influence T to execute Will 1? Did T have testamentary capacity to executed Will 2?

TRIAL COURT Held July Will to be controlling. Threw out February Will in its entirety due to Blums undue influence.

Held T lacked capacity to execute November Will.

TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY At the time of the wills execution, T has the ability to mentally understand in a general way: The nature and extent of his property to be disposed of (must generally know what assets you own); His relation to those people who would naturally claim a substantial benefit from the will (i.e., know who your close relatives are, sometimes referred to as natural objects of your bounty); and The practical effect of his will as executed (i.e., you know how your estate will be distributed after your death). Testamentary Plan

LUCID MOMENT Testator is declared legally incapacitated, but T may regain testamentary capacity by a lucid moment (or lucid interval). A "lucid moment" is a period of time during which the testator returned to a state of comprehension and possessed actual testamentary capacity

BURDEN OF PROOF ON LUCID MOMENT If T executes a will after being adjudicated to be incompetent, the proponent of such will bears burden of proof to show that T had a lucid moment when he executed that will. T was declared incapacitated in May 1993, so hes presumed incapacitated afterwards. Thus, Niece has burden to show that T had a lucid moment when he executed the July Will.

NIECE CANNOT MEET BURDEN/JULY WILL INVALID Niece presented testimony of two medical experts, who testified that T could have had capacity in July 1993, but neither of them examined T contemporaneously with Ts execution of the 1993 Will (in fact, one of them never personally examined T). Thus, the July Will is invalid because T lacked testamentary capacity to execute it.

FEBRUARY WILL CONTROLS (LESS PROVISION FOR BLUM) Court held that provision for Blum was invalid due to Blums undue influence over T, but that does not invalidate the remainder of the 1993 Will.

This is codified in Fla. Stat. 732.5165 A will is void if the execution is procured by fraud, duress, mistake, or undue influence. Any part of the will is void if so procured, but the remainder of the will not so procured shall be valid if it is not invalid for other reasons. If the revocation of a will, or any part thereof, is procured by fraud, duress, mistake, or undue influence, such revocation is void.