You Be The Lawyer! Can a Dementia Patient Sign a Will?

4 Oct 2022 · 1 min

Watch on YouTube

0:59

The video presents a hypothetical probate case involving an 85‑year‑old man with a $3 million estate. Three weeks before his death he executes a new will that leaves everything to the son who lives with him, disinheriting the other son. The disinherited son challenges the will, calling the man’s physician, who testifies that the man was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s dementia six months earlier. The beneficiary son calls the drafting attorney, who testifies that at the time of signing the testator knew his identity, his location, and that he was signing his own will. Two witnesses also signed the will. The court rules for the beneficiary because the proponent offered sufficient evidence of testamentary capacity and the challenger failed to prove lack of capacity. The key legal principle highlighted is that to overturn a will, the challenger must prove the testator lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the act at the time of execution.

Chapters

So you think you know the law, then you be the lawyer. An 85-year-old father of two sons made out his will, leaving his $3 million estate equally split between his two sons. Three weeks before the man's death, he creates a new will, leaving everything to the son who lives with him. The son who was cut out challenges the will. At trial, the son who was cut out of the will puts the man's doctor on the stand. The doctor testifies that six months prior to his death, he diagnosed the man with Alzheimer's dementia. The son who received all the money in the will put on the stand the lawyer who wrote the will. The lawyer testified that at the time of signing, the man knew his own identity, knew where he was, and knew that he was signing his own will. The will was signed by two witnesses. Who wins? The court ruled in favor of the brother who received all the money in the will because he put on evidence that the man knew what he was doing at the time he signed the will, and there was no other evidence to the contrary. To have won, the brother who was excluded must have shown that at the time of signing, the father did not know what he was doing.