DEROY v. Estate of Baron
43 A.3d 759
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Decedent Edith Baron died July 20, 2006; survived by three children: Aleta Deroy, Jeanne Baron, and Glen Baron.
- Two Wills were offered: Feb 12, 2002 leaving farm to Deroy and Glen; July 3, 2002 leaving farm to Jeanne with equal residue to all.
- Probate Court admitted the July 3, 2002 will after contest by Deroy and Glen.
- Trial de novo (Nov 2010) concluded decedent was incompetent on July 3, 2002 based on neuropsychologist Dr. Tolsdorf and conservator need.
- Majority held trial court applied an incorrect standard by requiring capacity to understand complex financial issues; reversed and remanded.
- Dissent would have affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of lack of capacity under an unclear standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the trial court's standard for testamentary capacity correct? | Deroy argues court used wrong standard. | Baron contends standard misapplied; dementia evidence shows incapacity. | Court held standard incorrect; reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner's Appeal, 72 Conn. 305 (1899) (capacity test for wills; distinguishes will capacity from ordinary business capacity)
- Stanton v. Grigley, 177 Conn. 558 (1979) (burden of proof for testamentary capacity; presumption of sanity in legal acts)
- City National Bank & Trust Co.'s Appeal, 145 Conn. 518 (1958) (testamentary capacity standard; focus on knowledge of will execution)
- Sanzo's Appeal from Probate, 133 Conn.App. 42 (2012) (establishes capacity standard for wills in appellate context)
- Turner v. Turner, 79 Am.Jur.2d, Wills § 63 (2011) (textual excerpt referenced in capacity discussion (secondary source))