Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Contemporaneous assessment of testamentary capacity

  • Kenneth I. Shulman (a1), Carmelle Peisah (a2), Robin Jacoby (a3), Jeremia Heinik (a4) and Sanford Finkel (a5)...

Abstract

Background: Challenges to wills on the basis of lack of testamentary capacity and/or undue influence are likely to increase over the next generation. Since contemporaneous assessment of testamentary capacity can be a powerful influence on the outcome of such challenges, there will be an associated increase in requests for expert assessment of testamentary capacity. There is a need to provide such potential experts with the knowledge and guidelines necessary to conduct assessments that will be helpful to the judicial system.

Methods: A subcommittee of the International Psychogeriatric Association (IPA) task force on “Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence” was formed to establish guidelines for contemporaneous assessment of testamentary capacity.

Results: The task-specific criteria for testamentary capacity as outlined by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn in the well-known Banks v. Goodfellow case are described. Additional issues are identified for probing and documentation. This is designed to determine whether the testator can formulate a coherent, rational testamentary plan that connects his/her beliefs, values and relationships with the proposed disposition of assets. Rules of engagement by the expert assessor are defined as well as an approach to the clinical examination for testamentary capacity resulting in a clear and relevant report.

Conclusion: Guidelines for experts who are asked to provide a contemporaneous opinion on testamentary capacity should help to inform disputes resulting from challenges to wills. A consistent clinical approach will help the courts to make their determinations.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Correspondence should be addressed to: Dr. K. I. Shulman, Department of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4N 3M5, Canada. Phone: +1 416 480 4079; Fax: +1 416 480 6022. Email: ken.shulman@sunnybrook.ca.

References

Hide All
Banks v. Goodfellow (1870). LR5 QB, 549.
Berg, J. W., Applebaum, P. S., Lidz, C. W. and Parker, L. S. (2001). Informed Consent. Legal Theory and Clinical Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Champine, P. (2006). Expertise and instinct in the assessment of testamentary capacity. Villanova Law Review, 51, 2594.
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. and McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189198.
Frolick, L. A. (2001). The strange interplay of testamentary capacity and the doctrine of undue influence: are we protecting older testators or overriding individual preferences? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 24, 253266.
Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating Competencies: Forensic Assessments and Instruments. New York: Kluwer Academic Press/Plenum Publishers.
Havens, J. J. and Schervish, P. G. (2003). Why the $41 trillion wealth transfer estimate is still valid: a review of challenges and questions. Journal of Gift Planning, 7, 1115, 4750.
Heinik, J., Werner, P. and Lin, R. (1999). How do cognitively impaired elderly patients define “testament”: reliability and validity of the Testament Definition Scale. Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 36, 2328.
Hull, R. and Hull, I. (1996). Suspicious circumstances in relation to testamentary capacity and undue influence. In Estates: Planning, Administration, and Litigation (pp. 7787) Law Society of Upper Canada, Special Lectures. Toronto: Carswell.
Jacoby, R. and Steer, P. (2007). How to assess capacity to make a will. BMJ, 335, 155157.
Kenward v Adams (1975). The Times, 29 November.
Marson, D. and Hebert, T. (2005). Civil competencies in older adults with dementia: medical-decision making capacity, financial capacity, and testamentary capacity. In Larabee, G. J. (ed.), Forensic Neuropsychology: A Scientific Approach (pp. 334377). New York: Oxford University Press.
Marson, D. C., Huthwaite, J. and Hebert, K. (2004). Testamentary capacity and undue influence in the elderly: A jurisprudent therapy perspective. Law and Psychology Review, 28, 7196.
Moye, J. and Marson, D. C. (2007). Assessment of decision-making capacity in older adults: an emerging area of practice and research. Journal of Gerontology, 62B, 311.
Peisah, C. (2005). Reflections on changes in defining testamentary capacity. International Psychogeriatrics, 17, 709712.
Peisah, C. et al. (2009). The wills of older people: risk factors for undue influence (Review). International Psychogeriatrics, 21, 715.
Posener, H. D. and Jacoby, R. (2008). Testamentary capacity. In Jacoby, R., Oppeinheimer, C., Dening, T. and Thomas, A. (eds.), Oxford Textbook of Old Age Psychiatry (pp. 753760). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shulman, K. and Feinstein, A. (2006). Quick Cognitive Screening for Clinicians. Rev. paperback edn. Oxford: Informa Healthcare.
Shulman, K. I., Cohen, C. A. and Hull, I. (2005). Psychiatric issues in retrospective challenges of testamentary capacity. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20, 6369.
Shulman, K. I., Cohen, C. A., Kirsh, F. C., Hull, I. M. and Champine, P. R. (2007). Assessment of testamentary capacity and vulnerability to undue influence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 722727.
Spar, J. E. and Garb, A. S. (1992). Assessing competency to make a will. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 168174.
Sprehe, D. J. and Kerr, A. L. (1996). Use of legal terms in will contests: implications for psychiatrists. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 24, 255265.
Wood, S. and Moye, J. (eds.) (2008). Assessment of Older Adults with Diminished Capacity: A Handbook for Psychologists. Washington, DC: American Bar Association and American Psychological Association.

Keywords

Contemporaneous assessment of testamentary capacity

  • Kenneth I. Shulman (a1), Carmelle Peisah (a2), Robin Jacoby (a3), Jeremia Heinik (a4) and Sanford Finkel (a5)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed