In the case Pace v. Steele, Darrell Steele and Kathy Pace are both requesting to be appointed as the executor of Ralph Steele's estate. Ralph was in his second stay at HealthSouth in January 2013 when he signed his will. The will was prepared by an attorney but was based on notes that Cora (Darrell's wife) had of Ralph's wishes. Ralph signed the completed will in front of witnesses. Kathy alleges that Ralph's will had been procured by fraud and undue influence. The court states Kathy failed to meet her burden of proof (Kubasek et al., 2020, p. 1247)
A will is valid if four requirements are met. Those requirements are the person who writes the will (testator) must be old enough and of sound mind, the will is written out, the testator signs the will, and a witness must attest to the will (Kubasek et al., 2020, p. 1245). The requirement in question, in this case, is number one, the mind of the testator. Although Darrel ad Cora procured the will, meaning they drafted the will for Ralph, Kathy must prove that Ralph was influenced and not of sound mind.
A key factor in the court's decision is the inconsistency of Ralph's mental state. There are instances where Ralph is described as having mental difficulty and intense pain but there are other documents that stated Ralph did not have dementia. Another key factor is the witness. The witness said that Ralph did not appear to be in pain at the time of the signing, could recognize the people and the situation, and seemed "mentally okay." Undue influence is the "influence that arises from fear, coercion, or any other causes that deprive the testator of his free agency in the disposition of his property" (Kubasek et al., 2020, p. 1247). Kathy has no proof that undue influence existed. Ralph had referenced "all those other vultures" which the court assumes means his other family. Darrell and Cora were following Ralph's wishes as family members do. They did not coerce him into signing the will. Another key factor is that the witness was not a beneficiary.
It's hard to know how far a court should go in protecting the elderly from undue influence and fraud. Maybe the court can stipulate that the witness can talk to the testator and get their mindset before signing the will. Perhaps when the elderly is suspected to have mental difficulty, a psychiatrist can be consulted. The psychiatrist can then testify that the will was made while the person was of sound mind. However, even these things can be too much of an imposition. Since I agree with the court's decision, it's hard for me to find a way the court needs to improve. I think family members need to talk with each other and respect each other's wishes.
Reference
Kubasek, N., Browne, M. N., Dhooge, L. J., Herron, D. J., Williamson, C., & Barkacs, L. L. (2020). Dynamic business law (5th ed.).