Overview
Testamentary capacity, insane delusion, undue influence, fraud, duress. This module covers 1 of The Law of Trusts casebook, with real case holdings, key principles, and practical problems.
Educational content from the casebook "The Law of Trusts" — rebranded under AKASHIC INTELLIGENCE / LOVELOVINGLIFE. This is legal education, not legal advice. Trust law varies by state. Always consult a qualified estate-planning attorney.
Key Cases (4)
Gallavan v. Estate of Gallavan
89 P.3d 521 · Issue: Testamentary capacity of a person under conservatorship
Holding: Appointment of a conservator does not equate to testamentary incapacity. The protected person can still create a testamentary trust if they meet the Cunningham test.
Estate of Squire
6 P.3d 1060 · Issue: Insane delusion and testamentary capacity
Holding: An insane delusion is a false belief not susceptible to correction. A mistake is different from a delusion. The delusion must impact the disposition.
Estate of Johnson
340 S.W.3d 769 · Issue: Undue influence — three-part Rothermel test
Holding: Undue influence requires: (1) existence and exertion of influence; (2) effective operation to subvert the testator's mind; (3) execution of a testament the maker would not have executed but for the influence.
Wright v. Roberts
797 So.2d 992 · Issue: Confidential relationship and undue influence
Holding: A confidential relationship exists when a dominant influence controls a dependent person. Once established, the burden shifts to the beneficiary to prove good faith, full knowledge, and independent consent.
Practice Problems (3)
Testamentary Capacity
Scenario: A testator under conservatorship creates a testamentary trust. Is it valid?
Analysis: Yes — conservatorship does not equal incapacity. The testator must still meet the Cunningham test (understand nature, property, disposition, objects of bounty). Conservatorship addresses management of affairs, not testamentary capacity.
Insane Delusion
Scenario: A testator believes her son is dead. The son visits to prove she is alive. The testator believes it is an imposter and excludes the son. Valid?
Analysis: Invalid — insane delusion. The belief is not susceptible to correction by evidence. If the son were truly dead (mistake), the trust would be valid.
Undue Influence
Scenario: An attorney who is not related to the testator benefits from a testamentary trust. What happens?
Analysis: A presumption of undue influence arises. The attorney must present clear and convincing evidence to rebut — showing good faith, full knowledge, and independent consent.
Deep Dive
Read the full chapter in The Law of Trusts, Made Plain