In Re the Estate of Quirin, 348 P.3d 658

Violet Quirin executed three wills (2005, 2007, 2010); the 2010 will disinherited her two daughters and left assets to friends, charities, and appointed friend Kristine Fankell as personal representative.
Attorney Nancy Moe drafted the 2010 will after meetings with Quirin; the will was signed June 23, 2010 with two paralegals as witnesses.
After Quirin’s death in January 2011, Fankell submitted the 2010 will for informal probate and was appointed personal representative; Speiser (one daughter) later petitioned to probate the 2007 will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity for the 2010 will.
The parties stipulated to many facts and to the Lightfield standard for testamentary capacity in a pretrial order; the court identified remaining factual issues for trial.
Following trial, the Fourth Judicial District Court found Quirin possessed testamentary capacity and confirmed probate of the 2010 will; Speiser appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Quirin lacked testamentary capacity when she executed the 2010 will	Speiser: Quirin lacked the requisite mental capacity; court applied an incomplete or incorrect standard and the finding was clearly erroneous	Proponent (Fankell/estate): Testamentary capacity is presumed; evidence showed Quirin understood the act, her property, and the objects of her bounty	Court affirmed: applied correct Lightfield test (awareness of three elements) and found capacity supported by substantial evidence
Whether the district court erred by issuing an order inconsistent with its pretrial order (and denying due process)	Speiser: Court deviated from pretrial order’s legal standard and failed to address all listed factual issues, violating M. R. Civ. P. 16(d) and due process	Estate: Court applied the pretrial standard and did not need to explicitly address every listed factual issue; no unfair surprise or prejudice occurred	Court affirmed: no deviation from the agreed standard; no requirement to rule on every pretrial-listed factual item; no due process violation

In re Estate of Lightfield, 351 Mont. 426, 213 P.3d 468 (Mont. 2009) (articulates the three-element awareness test for testamentary capacity)
In re Estate of Prescott, 300 Mont. 469, 8 P.3d 88 (Mont. 2000) (affirmed applying the three-element awareness test to determine capacity)
Baston v. Baston, 357 Mont. 470, 240 P.3d 643 (Mont. 2010) (pretrial order limits evidence and issues to prevent surprise)
In re Estate of Harms, 335 Mont. 66, 149 P.3d 557 (Mont. 2006) (discusses testamentary capacity standard)
In re Estate of Lambert, 333 Mont. 444, 143 P.3d 426 (Mont. 2006) (standards for reviewing district court factual findings)