Beneficiaries are often upset when they are not able to inherit property, and they are also upset when they are unhappy with the property they inherit. This often results in litigation brought by the beneficiary to contest the validity of the will. One way that wills are contested is for the beneficiary to argue that the decedent lacked the mental capacity to create a valid will.

A decedent must have sufficient mental capacity to create a will in order for the will to be valid. Even though wills speak as of the time of death, a decedent must have sufficient mental capacity at the time the will is executed by the decedent.

This mental capacity requirement for wills helps ensure the decedent’s true wishes are carried out by the will. It also helps to protect the decedent’s family and intended beneficiaries, the public, and the decedent himself. Absent a mental capacity requirement for wills, the decedent may be more likely to be exploited by cunning persons.

Every state has very specific statutory or case law specifying what qualifies as sufficient mental capacity to execute a will. In most states, the decedent will have sufficient mental capacity to execute a will if the decedent knows the nature and extent of his property, the persons who are the natural objects of his bounty, the disposition he is making of the property, and how these elements relate to form an orderly plan for the disposition of his property.

As applied, the mental capacity to create a will is minimal. The mental capacity to create a will is less than that required to be able to enter into contractual arrangements. In comparison, the mental capacity to enter into a will is higher than the mental capacity that is required to enter into marriage. Thus, someone whose mental capacity is severely deficient can get married and possibly create a will. The person may not be able to enter into contractual agreements.

Beneficiaries who contest wills based on lack of capacity arguments can have a difficult task ahead of them. Testamentary capacity generally cannot be abrogated by showing a few isolated acts, foibles, idiosyncrasies. Indeed, moral or mental irregularities or departures from normality is even irrelevant unless these issues directly bear upon and have influenced the testamentary act.

An insane delusion at the time the will is executed may result in the will being voided due to lack of capacity. The term “insane delusion” is a legal concept and not a psychiatric concept. It is a delusion to which the testator adheres against all evidence and reason to the contrary. One court has described an insane dilution like this:

“If a person persistently believes supposed facts, which have no real existence except in his perverted imagination, and against all evidence and probability, and conducts himself, however logically, upon the assumption of their existence, he is, so far as they are concerned, under a morbid delusion; and delusion in that sense is insanity. Such a person is essentially mad or insane on those subjects, though on other subjects he may reason, act, and speak like a sensible man.”

When the mental capacity of the decedent during his last years is in question, it is likely that the decedent was not able to pass on his life experiences. Instead, the only issue is usually what to do with the decedent’s property. This is unfortunate. It is also what may lead to a number of will contest situations.

There are different arguments to challenge wills other than lack of mental capacity. One common argument to contest a will is that the decedent was subject to undue influence by a third person at the time the will was executed. These undue influence issues can be very difficult to cope with for beneficiaries and family members. Let’s take a closer look at the undue influence argument in the context of will contests.