Gilbert v. Barra, 34,568

Background

Decedent Gilbert S. L. Gilbert executed wills in 1994 and 2007. The 2007 will omitted Petitioner (his son); the 1994 will also omitted Petitioner and was later found by the district court to be a sham to shield assets from Petitioner’s ex-wife.
Petitioner challenged the validity of both the 2007 and 1994 wills in a New Mexico probate proceeding; Intervenor Ellen Heine opposed and intervened.
New Jersey courts declined jurisdiction and held the probate should proceed in New Mexico; that decision was not appealed and became binding on the parties.
The district court invalidated the 2007 will for lack of testamentary capacity (and alternatively for undue influence) and found the 1994 will was a sham lacking testamentary intent.
Intervenor appealed, raising standing, forum, evidentiary (excluded witnesses and expert testimony), procedural (jury demand, appointment of special administrator), and sufficiency-of-evidence issues.

Issues

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Intervenor’s Argument	Held
Standing to challenge wills	Petitioner may challenge both wills; an heir who benefits from intestacy has standing	Intervenor: Petitioner lacked authority to attack 2007 will because he was omitted from 1994 will (which would revive)	Affirmed: Petitioner had standing because he challenged both wills; an heir who gains by intestacy may challenge a will
Proper forum (New Jersey vs New Mexico)	New Mexico probate statute allows proceedings here; NJ already refused jurisdiction	Intervenor: Case should be litigated in New Jersey; decedent domiciled in NJ	Affirmed: NJ declined jurisdiction; that decision was final and binding; New Mexico was proper forum
Exclusion of late-disclosed witnesses and denial of jury	Petitioner: Trial court properly enforced pretrial disclosures; denial of untimely jury demand not an abuse of discretion	Intervenor: Exclusion prejudiced her; some witnesses were interested parties and should testify; requested a six-person jury	Affirmed: Exclusion and denial were within trial court’s discretion; late disclosure prejudiced preparation; jury demand untimely
Validity of 2007 will — testamentary capacity	Petitioner: Evidence proved Decedent lacked capacity; expert and lay evidence supported voiding the will	Intervenor: Challenges sufficiency and truth of that evidence; sought broader review/transcript	Affirmed: District court’s factual findings on capacity are supported; appellate review defers to trial court credibility determinations

Key Cases Cited

Headley v. Morgan Mgmt. Corp., 137 N.M. 339 (2005) (court declines to address unclear or undeveloped arguments)
Jones v. Schoelkoppf, 138 N.M. 477 (2005) (appellate courts will not reweigh evidence or substitute credibility determinations)
Chapman v. Varela, 146 N.M. 680 (2009) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
In re Estate of Kimble, 117 N.M. 258 (1994) (three-pronged inquiry for testamentary capacity)
Matter of Estate of Martinez, 99 N.M. 809 (1983) (testamentary intent is essential to a valid will)
In re Estate of Gersbach, 125 N.M. 269 (1998) (close friends can occupy a confidential relationship for undue-influence analysis)
Montoya v. Super Save Warehouse Foods, 111 N.M. 212 (1991) (trial court has discretion to exclude late-disclosed witnesses)
ITT Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 125 N.M. 244 (1998) (failure to cite authority is ground to reject arguments)
Nellis v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 142 N.M. 115 (2007) (denial of untimely motion to intervene is not an abuse of discretion)
Schmitz v. Smentowski, 109 N.M. 386 (1990) (trial court may allow amendment of pleadings, even at trial)
Loper v. JMAR, 311 P.3d 1184 (2013) (admission of expert testimony is within trial court discretion)
Lee v. Martinez, 136 N.M. 166 (2004) (weaknesses in expert testimony go to weight, not admissibility)
State v. Ibarra, 116 N.M. 486 (1993) (record proper and docketing material can substitute for transcript on summary calendar)