## Facts

- John Anderson Haynsworth, Jr. executed a February 4, 1993 will drafted by attorney Ted Blum that left most of his estate to three charities and included an undisclosed bequest of about 5% to Blum.
- In April 1993, Blum petitioned for a competency determination; Haynsworth’s niece, Lisa Haynsworth-Jones, sought guardianship.
- In May 1993, Haynsworth was adjudicated incompetent and Lisa was appointed guardian, based on medical evidence of significant cognitive impairment.
- After the incompetency adjudication, Haynsworth executed a July 1993 will that reduced charitable gifts and increased gifts to family members.
- Haynsworth executed a later November 1993 will.
- Haynsworth died in December 1995; the February will was initially admitted to probate, and family members sought admission of the July or November will instead.
- At trial, the charities offered medical testimony indicating progressive dementia; the family offered psychiatric testimony that Haynsworth could have executed the July will during a lucid interval.

## Issues

1. Whether a prior adjudication of incompetency conclusively prevents a testator from validly executing a subsequent will.
2. Whether the evidence supported a finding that the testator had testamentary capacity during a lucid interval when executing the July 1993 will.
3. Whether the February 1993 will was properly invalidated due to undue influence arising from the drafting attorney’s undisclosed self-benefiting bequest.
4. Whether the November 1993 will was properly rejected for lack of testamentary capacity.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the probate court’s judgment.
- The court upheld invalidation of the February will based on the drafting attorney’s undue influence and conflict of interest.
- The court upheld rejection of the November will for lack of testamentary capacity.
- The court upheld admission of the July will, concluding the finding of a lucid interval and testamentary capacity at execution was supported by competent, substantial evidence.
- Applying a deferential review standard, the court declined to reweigh conflicting expert testimony and deferred to the probate court’s credibility determinations.

## Legal Principles

- A prior incompetency adjudication is relevant evidence but is not dispositive of testamentary capacity at the time a later will is executed.
- A will executed during a lucid interval may be valid if competent evidence shows the testator had testamentary capacity at the moment of execution.
- Conflicts in expert or medical testimony about capacity are resolved by the trial court as fact-finder; appellate review focuses on whether competent, substantial evidence supports the findings.
- A will may be invalidated for undue influence where a drafting attorney inserts a substantial, undisclosed benefit for the attorney, supporting an inference of overreaching and fiduciary breach.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed probate of the July 1993 will, holding that a prior incompetency adjudication did not bar a later valid will where competent, substantial evidence supported a lucid-interval finding, and it also affirmed invalidation of the February will for attorney undue influence and rejection of the November will for lack of capacity.


Am. Red Cross v. Est. of Haynsworth, 708 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)