## Facts

- Ida Bottger was an elderly woman (about ninety-two) who could not read or write English and had little business experience.
- Ida had a close relationship with her son, Harry Bottger, and his wife, Charlotte; Charlotte had worked as Ida’s housekeeper before marrying Harry and continued living with and helping Ida.
- Ida’s relationship with her other living children and certain grandchildren was strained.
- Ida executed a will leaving $10 to each of her living children and grandchildren and leaving the residue of her estate to Harry; the will also named Harry as executor.
- About a year or more before her death, Ida executed two deeds conveying real property to Harry.
- After the will was executed, several relatives petitioned to have Ida declared incompetent and to institute a guardianship; Ida was very upset when she learned of the petition and her relationship with those relatives did not recover.
- A guardianship of Ida’s estate was established by court order; the order recited that she was ninety-two years old, could not read or write English, had never had business experience, and had consented to the appointment, but it did not contain an express finding of insanity or other mental defect.
- After Ida died, several disinherited relatives contested the will and also sought to set aside the two deeds, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence and fraud by Harry and Charlotte.
- Shortly after the contest was filed, Harry died; Charlotte was appointed administratrix with the will annexed and substituted as the defending party.
- Charlotte asserted that the contestants had executed quitclaim deeds in favor of Harry covering any interests they had or might later acquire in the property Ida had deeded to Harry, and she argued they were estopped from challenging Ida’s deeds; the contestants responded that the quitclaims were signed under an unfulfilled understanding that property would later be shared.
- Medical proof conflicted: a physician called by contestants gave an opinion of incompetence based on a long hypothetical question, while two physicians who specialized in mental disease, served as attending physicians, and were subscribing witnesses to the will testified that they conducted a searching examination near the time of execution and found Ida competent.

## Issues

1. Whether the contestants proved by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that Ida lacked testamentary capacity when she executed her will.
2. Whether the appointment of a guardian for Ida’s estate constituted an adjudication of testamentary incapacity or created a presumption that she lacked capacity to make a will.
3. Whether the contestants proved undue influence or fraud by Harry and Charlotte sufficient to invalidate the will and set aside the deeds.
4. Whether, and to what extent, later quitclaim deeds by contestants to Harry barred the contestants from attacking Ida’s earlier deeds.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the trial court decree that invalidated the will, set aside the deeds, and revoked Charlotte’s letters as administratrix with the will annexed.
- The court held that a will rational on its face and executed in legal form is presumed valid, and the contestants did not carry their statutory burden to prove illegality by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.
- The court held that the guardianship order—based on age, inability to read or write English, lack of business experience, and Ida’s consent—was not an adjudication of insanity or mental incompetence and raised no presumption of lack of testamentary capacity.
- The court gave little weight to the contestants’ physician opinion based on a lengthy hypothetical question, and gave great weight to the testimony of the two attending physicians who were also subscribing witnesses and had examined Ida to determine capacity near the time the will was signed.
- The court concluded the evidence did not establish undue influence or fraud sufficient to overcome the presumption that the will and challenged conveyances reflected Ida’s free choice.
- The case was reversed with directions consistent with sustaining the will and deeds and restoring probate administration in accordance with the will.

## Legal Principles

- A testator has testamentary capacity if, at the time of execution, the testator has sufficient mind and memory to understand making a will, to comprehend generally the nature and extent of property, and to recollect the natural objects of the testator’s bounty.
- When a will is rational on its face and executed with required formalities, the law presumes testamentary capacity and that the will states the testator’s wishes.
- In a post-probate will contest, the contestant bears the burden of proving illegality, and that burden is met only by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.
- The appointment of a guardian to conserve a person’s estate does not necessarily show inability to make a will; it does not create a presumption of testamentary incapacity unless the appointment rests on an express finding of a mental defect inconsistent with testamentary capacity.
- Medical opinion on capacity may be discounted when it rests on a long hypothetical question framed to support the contestant’s theory.
- Testimony of physicians that the testator was competent is entitled to great weight when the physicians were attending doctors, were subscribing witnesses, had long worked with mental conditions, and conducted a searching contemporaneous examination for capacity.
- Allegations of undue influence or fraud must be proved with the same high level of proof required to overcome the presumption of validity of a duly executed will.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court reversed the decree nullifying Ida Bottger’s will and voiding her deeds, holding that the contestants failed to prove incapacity, undue influence, or fraud by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, and that the consensual guardianship—based on age and practical limitations rather than an express finding of mental defect—created no presumption against testamentary capacity.


In re Bottger's Estate, 14 Wash. 2d 676, 129 P.2d 518 (1942)