In Succession of John L Cazenave, Jr., 2022-CA-0852 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/1/23), the First Circuit affirmed the trial court’s finding on bench trial that a decedent lacked testamentary capacity to enter into a new will that excluded his two daughters and donated all property to his surviving spouse.
Facts
Johnny Cazenave passed away in 2020 from pancreatic cancer, leaving behind a wife and two children from a previous marriage. Just before he passed away, he signed a will leaving his entire estate to his current wife, which revoked a previous will that left his property to his children. His current wife filed a petition to be recognized as the owner of his estate, which the court granted. However, his children later filed a petition to annul the will signed just before his death, claiming that their father lacked testamentary capacity at the time of its execution and that it was the result of undue influence by the current wife.
During a bench trial, the children presented medical evidence establishing the severity of Johnny’s conditions, the medications he was taking, and their impact on his cognitive abilities. In addition, they presented evidence that he expressed his desire for his house to pass to his daughters and that, when the terms of the will were explained to him, he disapproved. In contrast, Johnny’s wife presented evidence that he intended for her to inherit his property and that several individuals who interacted with Johnny in the days prior to the execution of the will, including the notary and witness to the will, had no concerns about Johnny’s mental capacity.
After examining the evidence, the court determined that Johnny lacked testamentary capacity on the date he signed the will. The court stated that it found the children’s witnesses credible, and that their medical testimony should be given great weight. In contrast, the court determined that a number of the wife’s witnesses lacked credibility or provided testimony that was irrelevant to the issue at hand. The court voided Johnny’s will and the possession judgment recognizing his wife as the owner of the estate.
Appellate Ruling
The First Circuit upheld the trial court’s ruling that Johnny lacked testamentary capacity, finding no manifest error. The appellate court explained that cases involving challenges to capacity are fact-intensive and require the court to consider objective and subjective indicators, including illness, old age, delusions, sedation, and outrageous behavior. The court will also consider medical evidence and lay and expert witness testimony.
In this instance, the trial court had to determine the credibility of the various witnesses. The appellate court found no error in the lower court’s decision to give more weight to the expert testimony of Dr. Saux and Nurse Diaz than to the testimony of lay witnesses who observed Johnny for brief periods of time. Throughout Johnny’s illness, Dr. Saux and Nurse Diaz provided care and explained the effects of the treatment drugs on cognitive function and the pain that would have ensued if the drugs had been discontinued. The appellate court also found no error in the trial court’s decision to reject the notary’s self-serving testimony that he would not have notarized the will if there was any doubt regarding the client’s capacity.
Conclusion
The case demonstrates that even a properly executed will may be challenged if the testator lacked testamentary capacity or was subject to undue influence at the time of execution. Moreover, the case highlights the importance of expert witness testimony when determining the credibility of witnesses and the weight given to expert testimony and medical evidence.