In Re Estate of Conway, 277 P.3d 380

Kathleen Conway executed a 2001 will dividing 80% to her three children and Wooden, with 20% to grandchildren; 2004 will markedly reduced Wooden's share to about 1.43% and increased Cecil Martin's to 30%.
Conway had dementia diagnosed in 2001 and Alzheimer's disease diagnosed in 2003, influencing guardianship proceedings.
Martin was appointed limited guardian (and later sole guardian) with conservator Tesco Trust; he participated in some but not all will-drafting meetings.
Attorney Michael Wasko drafted the 2004 will after meetings with Conway; Conway directed the distributions, with Wooden noted as a key beneficiary.
Wooden, Conway’s niece who had a close bond with Conway, challenged the 2004 will as lacking testamentary capacity or being the product of undue influence; the 2004 will was admitted to informal probate.
The magistrate court ruled the 2004 will valid, the district court affirmed, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed based on substantial competent evidence supporting no undue influence and proper testamentary capacity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Presumption of undue influence applied?	Wooden argues the magistrate failed to apply the presumption.	Martin argues the presumption was recognized and addressed through Gmeiner factors.	Presumption acknowledged; substantial evidence supports no undue influence.
Admission of Wooden's hearsay statements, and relevance of statements by Conway	Wooden claims statements show Conway's inability to resist influence.	Statements were hearsay, remote in time, and not probative of capacity.	Magistrate did not abuse discretion; statements excluded as hearsay/relevance limitations.
Admissibility of guardianship documents determining capacity	Documents show Conway's lack of capacity.	Documents contain hearsay and are of questionable relevance to testamentary capacity.	District court affirmed exclusion; not relevant to capacity at will execution.
Reliance on Wasko's capacity opinion	Wasko lacked professional certainty; not qualified.	Wasko sufficiently testified on capacity as a lay expert based on experience.	Magistrate's reliance on Wasko supported by substantial evidence; capacity found.

Estate of Roll, 115 Idaho 797, 770 P.2d 806 (Idaho 1989) (presumption of undue influence when fiduciary also beneficiary; burden on proponent to rebut)
Gmeiner v. Yacte, 100 Idaho 1, 592 P.2d 57 (Idaho 1979) (elements of undue influence; factors relevant to testamentary capacity)
In re Randall's Estate, 64 Idaho 629, 132 P.2d 763 (Idaho 1942) (fiduciary relationship affects undue influence considerations)
King v. MacDonald, 90 Idaho 272, 410 P.2d 969 (Idaho 1965) (relevance of testator's mental condition evidence and admissibility of declarations)
In re Heazle's Estate, 74 Idaho 72, 257 P.2d 556 (Idaho 1953) (testamentary capacity standards and non-expert testimony)
Schwarz v. Taeger, 44 Idaho 625, 258 P. 1082 (Idaho 1927) (lay testimony on testamentary capacity permissible)