## Facts

- Jorge Mesa, who suffered from AIDS, executed multiple wills over time, including one naming a relative and a later will naming Francisco Gerardo Diaz (a Catholic priest) as sole beneficiary.
- Mesa’s relationship with Diaz later cooled, while neighbors—including Frank and Cecilia Ashworth and other nearby residents—provided increasing day-to-day assistance and transportation for medical care.
- In June 2003 Mesa was hospitalized; medical records described advanced HIV disease but repeatedly noted he was awake, alert, and oriented.
- Mesa was transferred to a nursing center; on July 9, 2003, he expressed a desire to make a new will.
- Cecilia Ashworth contacted Frank Ashworth, who suggested an attorney with whom he had a prior relationship; Mesa communicated his wishes to the attorney by telephone.
- On July 10, 2003, Mesa left the nursing center against medical advice; the Ashworths took him to his long-time physician, who documented that Mesa knew death was near, wanted to return home, and agreed to hospice care.
- The Ashworths then took Mesa to the attorney’s office, where Mesa executed a will naming Frank Ashworth as sole beneficiary; the will was read to Mesa before he signed, and witnesses included a neighbor and the attorney’s secretary.
- After Mesa’s death, the July 10, 2003 will was admitted to probate.
- Diaz filed a will contest alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by Ashworth.
- After a bench trial, the trial court dismissed Diaz’s complaint and upheld the will.

## Issues

1. Whether Mesa lacked testamentary capacity when he executed the July 10, 2003 will.
2. Whether the July 10, 2003 will was procured by Ashworth’s undue influence under Florida law, including the presumption analysis described in *In re Estate of Carpenter*.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the final judgment dismissing Diaz’s will contest.
- The evidence supported the finding that Mesa had testamentary capacity at execution.
- Diaz did not prove undue influence, and the record supported the trial court’s rejection of any presumption of undue influence under the *Carpenter* factors.
- The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations and weighing of evidence where competent substantial evidence supported the result.

## Legal Principles

- Testamentary capacity requires that, at execution, the testator understands the nature and extent of property, recognizes the natural objects of bounty, and comprehends the effect of making the will.
- Serious illness and impending death do not alone defeat testamentary capacity; contemporaneous medical records and witness testimony may establish capacity.
- Undue influence in will contests is assessed using the *In re Estate of Carpenter* framework, focusing on suspicious circumstances such as a substantial benefit, a confidential relationship, and active procurement.
- Even where a beneficiary helps arrange attorney contact, transportation, or attendance around execution, undue influence is not established if the testator initiated the change, communicated instructions, and executed the will after it was read and witnessed.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the July 10, 2003 will because competent substantial evidence showed Mesa remained mentally competent to make a will, and the circumstances surrounding Ashworth’s involvement did not prove that the will resulted from undue influence under Florida’s *Carpenter* analysis.


Diaz v. Ashworth, 963 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)