## Facts

- Quitman Thomas Cooper, Jr. suffered a stroke during a September 1999 hospitalization and was discharged in late October.
- After discharge, Juanita Cooper cared for him at his home; the couple married at the home on October 27, 1999, without the children’s knowledge.
- On November 2, 1999, Mr. Cooper executed a notarial testament leaving virtually all of his estate to Juanita and only nominal legacies to each of his three adult children.
- The testament was prepared by an attorney and executed before the attorney and two law-firm employees, who later testified Mr. Cooper understood the act and communicated his wishes.
- Mr. Cooper died on July 26, 2000, and the testament was probated.
- The children sued to annul the probate, alleging (1) lack of testamentary capacity due to stroke-related impairment and medication and (2) undue influence by Juanita.
- After the children presented their case at a bench trial, Juanita moved for involuntary dismissal under La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1672(B); the trial court granted the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether the challengers proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the testator lacked testamentary capacity on the date the notarial testament was executed.
2. Whether the challengers proved the testament resulted from undue influence such that the testator’s will was substituted by another’s.
3. Whether the trial court properly granted involuntary dismissal under La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1672(B) at the close of the challengers’ evidence.

## Decision

- The court of appeal affirmed the involuntary dismissal.
- The challengers did not overcome the presumption of testamentary capacity as to the testator’s mental state on November 2, 1999.
- The challengers did not prove undue influence; evidence of caregiving, marriage, and a substantial benefit to the spouse did not establish domination or substitution of will.
- The trial court, as factfinder in a bench trial, was permitted to weigh credibility and evidence under art. 1672(B) and conclude the challengers failed to establish a right to relief.

## Legal Principles

- Testamentary capacity is presumed; the party seeking annulment bears the burden to prove lack of capacity by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Capacity is assessed at the time of execution of the testament; evidence of illness or impairment before or after execution is insufficient unless tied to incapacity on the execution date.
- Undue influence requires proof that another so dominated the testator that the testament expresses the influencer’s will rather than the testator’s free volition.
- A close or confidential relationship and a beneficiary’s caregiving role, without specific proof of coercive or manipulative conduct, do not establish undue influence.
- In a bench trial, involuntary dismissal under La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1672(B) allows the judge to weigh evidence and credibility without favoring the plaintiff; dismissal is proper when the plaintiff fails to prove entitlement to relief by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Appellate review defers to reasonable trial-court credibility determinations and factual inferences absent manifest error.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld dismissal of the children’s challenge to the notarial testament because their evidence showed medical impairment and suspicious circumstances but did not prove incapacity on the execution date or coercion amounting to undue influence, and the trial court properly weighed the evidence under the involuntary dismissal standard.


Succession of Cooper, 830 So. 2d 1087 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002)