## Facts

- An 85-year-old woman made multiple inter vivos gifts to her longtime veterinarian by writing checks totaling $56,100 between September and November 2004.
- The donor had been a client of the veterinarian’s practice for nearly twenty years and had regularly paid veterinary bills; there was no evidence of prior gifting.
- Shortly after the last check, the donor was hospitalized and diagnosed with dementia and alcohol dependency.
- The donor’s son was appointed guardian and sued to invalidate the transfers based on lack of capacity and undue influence.
- At a jury-waived trial, a defense psychiatrist testified that although the donor could not manage her own affairs at the time of evaluation, she would have understood she was giving away money when she wrote the checks.
- The trial judge credited that testimony, assessed capacity using a testamentary-capacity standard, and placed the burden of proof on the guardian.

## Issues

1. In a civil challenge to an inter vivos gift for lack of capacity, does the burden of proof on donative capacity remain with the challenger or shift to the donee?
2. Did the evidence require a finding of undue influence, including based on an asserted fiduciary relationship between the donor and the donee?

## Decision

- The Appeals Court affirmed judgment for the defendants on all claims.
- The court held the trial judge properly kept the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove lack of donative capacity.
- The court held the record supported the finding that the donor had sufficient capacity to make the gifts.
- The court held there was no clear error in the finding that the plaintiff failed to prove undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- In challenges to inter vivos gifts based on mental incapacity, the burden of proof ordinarily rests on the party seeking to set aside the gift.
- A court may evaluate donative capacity using a testamentary-capacity standard without shifting the burden to the donee.
- To invalidate a gift for undue influence, the challenger must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the donee’s influence overcame the donor’s free will.
- In a jury-waived case, appellate review defers to the trial judge’s credibility determinations and factual findings unless clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

The Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld substantial gifts to a longtime veterinarian because the guardian did not carry the burden to prove the donor lacked capacity at the time of the transfers or that the gifts resulted from undue influence.


Goodman v. Atwood, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 655, 940 N.E.2d 514 (2011)