When contesting a will based on lack of mental capacity, you have a higher chance of success if the testator suffered from a dementia disorder, mental illness, or was in a weak physical state. The fact that the testator was taking potent mind-altering pharmaceuticals during the will execution can also play a significant role.
Dementia Disorders – There is a wide range of dementia disorders that can interfere with a person’s capacity to make a will.
Changes in memory and behavior in older adults usually point to dementia. The gradual cognitive decline caused by a degenerative condition eventually results in the loss of mental capacity required to make a will. The more dementia progresses, the harder it becomes for a person to make decisions. Therefore, the later the stage of Dementia, the more likely it is for the will contest to succeed.
Mental Illness – Mental illness in and of itself does not mean that the decedent lacks capacity. In order to be successful in contesting a will, the objectant to the will is going to have to show how the mental illness played a role in the making of the will. Some examples of mental illness that can impact the capacity to make a will are:
Personality Disorders – personality disorders do not automatically mean that the decedent lacked capacity. But they can still make a big difference in contesting a will. For example, if the person who made the will had a “Cluster C” Dependent Personality Disorder, that person can be vulnerable to having “well-wishers” unduly influence them into making a will. When using personality disorders as a factor in challenging the will, we look to symptoms such as
Weak Physical State – We contest wills decedents who were in such a weak physical state that it can be said that their physical state adversely influenced their mental capacity.
Mind-Altering Pharmaceuticals – The fact that the decedent was taking potent mind-altering pharmaceuticals during the will execution can play a difference. When the decedent is in an altered state, they can have a significantly reduced capacity in understanding the facts of daily life, including the factors involved in making a will. Sedatives, antipsychotic and pain medications can push a person’s mental state over the edge of capacity.
“Drifting in and Out” and “Lucid Moments” – Some people, as they get older, may drift in and out, sometimes lucid and sometimes not. If you are contesting a will, you will try to win by showing that the decedent was never lucid at all, or was only lucid on rare occasions and the time of the making of the will was not one of those occasions. Those defending the will are going to say that the time of will execution was a “lucid moment.”
Some will contest lawyers and medical professionals hold the view that the “lucid moment” concept is out of date with the modern understanding of mental capacity. Their view is that since a person has no mental capacity, it doesn’t “return” to them on some occasions. However, at this time, New York courts still consider “lucid moments,” so this is an important factor to consider in New York will contests.
Circumstantial Evidence – In contesting a will, your lawyer does not have to prove that the decedent lacked capacity on the exact day of the will signing. Instead, we can use circumstantial evidence to show that the decedent lacked capacity during that time period.
Obtaining Medical Records – The most effective strategy for challenging the decedent’s mental capacity is to obtain medical records from the medical providers and then go through the medical records and see if there are any notes that point to incapacity, such as evaluations from medical personnel and check for a list of Alzheimer’s or dementia medications, sedatives and antipsychotics.
Different forensic and analytical tests will be used to asses the mental capacity of the person. The decedent might have been administered a Mini-Mental Exam or the Clock Test while they were still alive. After their death, when an in-person mental exam cannot be administered. But we can still try to use models of mental capacity such as PARADISE – 2 to argue that the testator had impaired brain function at the time of the events in question.