## Facts

- Fred Holbrook, a longtime operator of an apple orchard, controlled Scott Farm, Inc. and repeatedly stated he wanted the farm preserved as an operating orchard and protected from development.
- Landmark Trust (USA), Inc., a nonprofit land-preservation organization, previously acquired and restored a small portion of Holbrook’s property, which increased Holbrook’s confidence in Landmark’s stewardship.
- In early 1994, Holbrook asked Landmark whether it would be interested in operating and maintaining Scott Farm to preserve it as an orchard.
- In June 1995, Holbrook executed a deed of trust and related instruments transferring Scott Farm to Landmark; the arrangement did not create a meaningful endowment and was not structured to generate financial gain for Landmark.
- Later in 1995 and thereafter, Holbrook’s cognitive condition worsened, and he was eventually diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease.
- After learning of the transfer, John Goodhue sought appointment as Holbrook’s guardian and was appointed involuntary guardian in 1996; Goodhue and Holbrook’s sister, Mary Panzera, challenged the transfer.
- Landmark and Scott Farm, Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action to confirm the transfer’s validity; after a bench trial, the trial court found Holbrook competent in June 1995 and found no undue influence.

## Issues

1. Whether Holbrook had sufficient mental capacity in June 1995 to make a valid inter vivos transfer of Scott Farm despite later-documented Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline.
2. Whether the transfer was procured through undue influence by Landmark or its representatives.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the declaratory judgment upholding the transfer.
- The Court held that competency turns on the donor’s understanding of the nature and effect of the transaction at the time of the gift, and the trial court’s findings on contemporaneous evidence were not clearly erroneous.
- The Court held defendants failed to establish undue influence because the evidence supported that the transfer reflected Holbrook’s long-held preservation objective and was not the product of coercion or manipulation.
- The Court emphasized deferential appellate review of fact findings grounded in witness credibility and contemporaneous observations.

## Legal Principles

- Donative capacity for an inter vivos gift exists if, at the time of the transaction, the donor has sufficient mind and memory to understand the nature and effect of the transfer.
- Later medical diagnoses and retrospective evidence of dementia may inform the inquiry but do not control when contemporaneous evidence supports capacity at the time of execution.
- Undue influence requires proof of overpersuasion, coercion, or manipulation that overbears the donor’s free will; consistency with the donor’s longstanding intentions weighs against undue influence.
- Appellate courts will not disturb trial court findings on capacity and undue influence absent clear error, particularly where findings rest on credibility determinations.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Holbrook’s June 1995 transfer of Scott Farm to a preservation nonprofit, finding that contemporaneous testimony supported his understanding of the transaction and that challengers did not prove coercion or manipulation, even though Holbrook later suffered significant cognitive decline.


Landmark Tr. (USA), Inc. v. Goodhue, 172 Vt. 515, 782 A.2d 1219 (2001)