50 State Testamentary Capacity Project: Alaska Testamentary Capacity Expert Definitions
In an effort to provide a better understanding for what testamentary capacity expert psychologists look for when forming opinions about whether the person had testamentary capacity in the execution of a will, trust, beneficiary designation, or other testamentary contractual document, I am highlighting the statutes, case law, and jury instructions specific to all 50 states. Each will be in its own blog post. First up, Alaska.
Riddell v. Edwards, 32 P.3d 4 (Alaska 2001)
Citing Paskvan, 455 P.2d at 234 (quoting In re Estate of Kraft, 374 P.2d 413, 416 (Alaska 1962)):
Disease, great weakness, the use of alcohol and drugs, and approaching death do not alone render a testator incompetent to make a will. The question is always whether, in spite of these things, [a testator] had sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature and extent of [her] property, the natural or proper objects of [her] bounty, and the nature of [her] testamentary act.
Citing In re Estate of Kottke, 6 P.3d 243, 246 (Alaska 2000):
A deficiency on any one of the three elements [of testamentary capacity] invalidates the will.
Crittell v. Bingo, 26 P.3d 634 (Alaska 2001)
Citing In re Kraft’s Estate, 374 P.2d 413 (Alaska 1962):
The question is always whether ․ [the testator] had sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature and extent of [her] property, the natural or proper objects of [her] bounty, and the nature of [her] testamentary act
Alaska CVPJI 26.07 Testamentary Capacity Challenge
The Contestant claims that the will is invalid because the Maker was not of sound mind when the will was signed. For the Contestant to win on this claim, you must decide that at least one of the following things is more likely true than not true:
(1) the Maker lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature and extent of [his] [her] property;
(2) the Maker lacked the mental capacity to understand that [he] [she] was signing a will that would dispose of [his] [her] property when [he] [she] died;
(3) the Maker lacked the mental capacity to identify the persons or entities to whom someone in the Maker's position would naturally consider leaving property.
[Evidence that the Maker [was] [old] [sick] [weak] [approaching death] [used] [was addicted to] [drugs or alcohol] [had a guardian] does not establish that the Maker lacked a sound mind. However, you may consider this evidence in determining whether the Maker lacked a sound mind.
Alaska CVPJI 26.08 Testamentary Capacity (Insane Delusions)
In order to find that the will is invalid because [name of testator] was the victim of an insane delusion, you must find that it is more likely true than not true that at the time the will was signed:
(1) [Name of testator] held a belief which had no basis in reason and which could not be removed by any amount of reasoning or argument and
(2) The false belief bore directly upon the creation and terms of [name of testator's] will so that the will provides for a distribution of [his/her] property in a way which except for the existence of such delusion [he/she] would not have made.