50 State Testamentary Capacity Project: Alabama 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. Second up, Alabama.
Rothwell v. Molitor 297 So.3d 471 (Alabama Civil Appeal 2019)
Citing Culver v. King, 362 So.2d 221, 222 (Alabama 1978):
The law presumes that every person has the capacity to execute a will, and the burden is on the contestant to prove the lack of testamentary capacity. To possess testamentary capacity, one must be able to recall the property to be devised, the desired disposition of the property, and the persons to whom he or she wishes to devise the property. If the testator knows his estate and to whom he wishes to give his property and understands that he is executing a will, he has testamentary capacity. A person may execute a valid will, even if he or she is not competent to transact ordinary, everyday affairs.
Ex Parte Helms 873 So.2d 1139 (Alabama 2003)
Citing In Fletcher v. DeLoach, 360 So.2d 316 (Ala. 1978):
The law presumes that every person has the capacity to execute a will, and the burden is on the contestant to prove the lack of testamentary capacity. To possess testamentary capacity, one must be able to recall the property to be devised, the desired disposition of the property, and the persons to whom he or she wishes to devise the property.
Citing Smith v. Vice, 641 So.2d 785, 786-88 (Alabama 1994):
Simply stated, if the testator knows his estate and to whom he wishes to give his property and understands that he is executing a will, he has testamentary capacity. A person may execute a valid will, even if he or she is not competent to transact ordinary, everyday affairs.
The fact that the testator is under the immediate influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs at the time he performs the testamentary act does not invalidate his will on the ground of lack of testamentary capacity, provided that he then comprehends the nature, extent, and disposition of his estate and his relation to those who have or might have a claim on his bounty.
Batson v. Batson 217 Ala. 450, 117 So. 10 (Alabama 1928)
Citing Florey’s Ex’rs v. Flory, 24 Ala. 241; L.R.A. 1915A, 459, note; 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 68:
An insane delusion is one that has no foundation in fact, yet this delusion so affected the testator as to render him incapable of making a will under the law.
Citing In re Rirdan’s Estate, 13 Cal.App. 313, 109 P. 629:
If one, against all evidence and probability, believes supposed facts that have no existent except in his perverted imagination, and conducts himself, however logically, upon the assumption of their existence, he is, so far as they are concerned, under an insane delusion.
Citing Lanham v. Lanham, 62 Tex.Civ.App. 431, 146 S.W. 635:
The belief in a state of supposed facts that do no exist, and which no rational person would believe, in the absence of evidence, to exist, is an insane delusion.
Citing Johnson v. Johnson, 105 Md. 81, 65 A. 918, 121:
To void a will because the testator entertained a delusion, that delusion must be an insane delusion, and the will must be the product thereof.
An insane delusion is a belief in things impossible, or, though possible, so improbable under the surrounding circumstances that no man of sound mind could give them credence.
Smith v. Vice 641 So.2d 785 (Alabama 1994)
Citing Coffey v. Miller, 160 Ky. 415, 169 S.W. 852 (1914):
An insane delusion is distinguishable from a belief that is founded on prejudice or aversion, no matter how unreasonable or unfounded the prejudice or aversion may be.