180 Conn. App. 331
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Decedent Dr. William W. Bassford (d. Feb. 19, 2014) executed a will on May 7, 2012 leaving the bulk of his estate to his third wife, Frances Bassford; two witnesses and counsel attested and the will was admitted to probate.
- In 2006 Dr. Bassford had executed a trust entitled the "William W. Bassford Irrevocable Trust," but Article Two expressly reserved the settlor's power to revoke.
- In 2011 Dr. Bassford was involuntarily conserved; Frances became conservatrix. He suffered from dementia (mild–moderate), anxiety, PTSD, hearing loss, recurring urinary-tract–infection–related delirium, and chronic benzodiazepine use.
- Attorney Annette Willis met with Dr. Bassford multiple times (Mar–May 2012), prepared the will and related documents; Dr. Bassford reviewed, corrected, and signed them (including initialing corrections to his health-care directive).
- On June 20, 2012, while hospitalized at the Institute of Living, Dr. Bassford signed a revocation of the 2006 trust and later the trustees executed a quitclaim conveying the trust's interest in the home to him.
- Plaintiffs (three adult children) appealed the probate admission of the 2012 will, challenged Dr. Bassford's testamentary capacity, contended the trust was irrevocable and therefore could not be revoked or conveyed, argued he lacked capacity to accept the deed while conserved, and alleged undue influence by Frances. The Superior Court (as probate) dismissed the appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Testamentary capacity to execute May 7, 2012 will | Dr. Bassford lacked sufficient mental capacity (dementia, medication, delirium history) to understand his estate at signing | Proponent (Frances) showed repeated, consistent expressions of intent, attorney and psychiatrist observed lucidity on signing day; he corrected documents independently | Court found proponent met burden; Dr. Bassford had requisite testamentary capacity on May 7, 2012 |
| Revocability of 2006 trust | Trust is labeled "Irrevocable" so title controls; revocation was invalid | Trust instrument’s operative provisions (Article Two) expressly reserved power to revoke; operative terms govern | Trust was revocable; operative provisions control over title label |
| Mental capacity to revoke trust and to accept deed while conserved | Dr. Bassford lacked higher business-level capacity needed to revoke trust and could not accept conveyance as conserved person | Evidence showed he repeatedly formed intent, was lucid when revoking; conserved person retains rights not expressly assigned to conservator; statute protects against dissipation, not receipt of property | Court found he had capacity to revoke and could validly accept deed despite conservatorship |
| Undue influence in execution of will | Frances, as conservatrix and spouse, exercised undue influence to secure a will favoring her | No direct evidence of coercion; attorney and psychiatrist observed independence; plaintiff suspicion insufficient | Plaintiffs failed to meet burden; no undue influence proven |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner v. Balboni, 218 Conn. 220 (discusses burdens and formalities for probate/will execution)
- City National Bank Trust Co.'s Appeal, 145 Conn. 518 (test for testamentary capacity: capacity at time of execution)
- Stanton v. Grigley, 177 Conn. 558 (burden of proof in testamentary capacity disputes)
- Tallmadge Bros., Inc. v. Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., 252 Conn. 479 (contract/ instrument interpretation principles)
- Wilson v. Towers, 55 F.2d 199 (rule on conflict between recitals and operative provisions)
- Kunz v. Sylvain, 159 Conn. App. 730 (distinguishing capacity to make a will from capacity to undertake trust transactions)
- Pickman v. Pickman, 6 Conn. App. 271 (elements and factors in undue influence claims)