## Facts

- Hazel Mann, age 94, died in 1981; her closest relatives were two nephews, Roy Laird Smith and Norman Van Gorp.
- Mann had a particularly close relationship with Smith, who provided regular assistance and became her primary caregiver.
- By the mid-1970s, Mann showed signs of progressive senility, including confusion and memory lapses.
- In November 1975, Smith became conservator of Mann’s person and estate on the advice of Mann’s physician and a social worker.
- In July 1976, Mann executed a will prepared by an attorney, witnessed by her physician and housekeeper, leaving most of her estate to Smith.
- Witnesses to execution testified Mann was alert, knew she was signing a will, and understood her finances at the time of execution.
- After the will was admitted to probate, Van Gorp contested it, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by Smith.
- A jury found Mann was of unsound mind at execution and that the will was procured by Smith’s undue influence; the trial court revoked probate.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Mann lacked testamentary capacity at the time she executed the 1976 will.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Smith procured the will by undue influence.
3. Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by refusing a proposed jury instruction clarifying the legal requirements for undue influence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment revoking probate.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support findings of testamentary incapacity and undue influence.
- The court further held the refusal to give a clarifying undue-influence instruction was prejudicial because it risked a verdict based on suspicion, opportunity, or relationship alone rather than legally required proof connected to the will’s execution.

## Legal Principles

- Testamentary capacity is presumed; the contestant bears the burden to rebut the presumption with substantial evidence.
- Capacity must be evaluated at the time of the will’s execution; evidence of mental decline before or after is relevant but not dispositive.
- A testator may have sufficient capacity during a lucid interval to understand the testamentary act, the nature and extent of property, and the natural objects of bounty.
- Undue influence requires proof that the influencer’s conduct overcame the testator’s free will and caused the testamentary disposition; opportunity, motive, dependence, or close relationship alone is insufficient.
- A presumption of undue influence may arise where a beneficiary in a confidential/fiduciary relationship actively participates in procuring the will and receives an undue benefit, but the evidence must still support a causal connection between influence and the will’s making or execution.
- In will contests, erroneous or incomplete instructions on undue influence can be reversible error where they permit liability based on diluted standards.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reinstated the will by reversing the order revoking probate, concluding that generalized evidence of senility and suspicious circumstances surrounding a conservator-beneficiary did not amount to substantial evidence of incapacity at execution or undue influence causing the testamentary act, and that the jury was prejudicially misinstructed on the required connection between influence and the will’s execution.


Estate of Mann, 184 Cal. App. 3d 593 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)