## Facts

- Robert Ramon Romero executed a will leaving $500 to each of his two children and the residuary estate to his mother and sister in equal shares, with a survivorship provision.
- Romero’s mother predeceased him, making his sister the sole residuary beneficiary and successor personal representative under the will.
- At execution, Romero’s estate was about $90,000; at death, it was about $450,000, consisting largely of VA and Social Security benefits. Romero knew the general sources of the estate but not exact amounts.
- Romero had schizophrenia and experienced auditory hallucinations; he was subject to a VA guardianship over his financial affairs.
- The children challenged the will in a formal testacy proceeding, seeking intestacy based on alleged lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.
- A treating physician testified about Romero’s hallucinations but had limited contact with him near the execution date and could not connect symptoms to the will’s execution.
- The drafting attorney met with Romero multiple times, including at Romero’s home, and testified Romero understood he was making a will and wanted to favor his mother and sister due to limited contact with his children and the support he received from his mother and sister.
- The attorney testified Romero’s mother transported him but was not present during attorney-client discussions or execution of the will.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence required a finding that Romero lacked testamentary capacity at the time he executed the will, given his schizophrenia, VA guardianship, and imperfect knowledge of the estate’s value.
2. Whether the will was the product of undue influence by Romero’s mother or sister.

## Decision

- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s order admitting the will to formal probate and denying the petition for intestacy.
- The court held the probate court did not err in finding Romero had testamentary capacity when he executed the will.
- The court held the probate court did not err in finding the will was not the product of undue influence.

## Legal Principles

- Testamentary capacity depends on the testator’s condition at the time of execution and requires understanding (1) the nature of making a will, (2) the general nature and extent of property, and (3) the natural objects of the testator’s bounty and the intended disposition.
- Mental illness and a protective/financial guardianship are relevant evidence but do not, by themselves, establish lack of testamentary capacity.
- Knowledge of the general categories or sources of assets may satisfy the “nature and extent” requirement; precise dollar amounts are not required.
- Undue influence is not shown merely by a close relationship, assistance such as transportation, or a favorable disposition to beneficiaries; evidence that the testator acted independently and articulated reasons for the disposition supports rejection of an undue influence claim.
- In will contests, the probate court’s credibility determinations and weighing of conflicting testimony (including the drafting attorney’s testimony about execution) are entitled to deference on appeal when supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The court upheld probate of Romero’s will because competent evidence supported findings that he understood he was making a will, knew the general sources of his property, and chose his beneficiaries for stated reasons; neither schizophrenia and VA guardianship nor the surrounding family circumstances compelled a finding of incapacity or undue influence.


In re Estate of Romero, 126 P.3d 228 (Colo. App. 2005)