Paine v. Sullivan
79 Mass. App. Ct. 811
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- John L. Sullivan, born May 1912, married Odette in 1956; they adopted Valerie and Annabelle; Odette died July 23, 2004; John died 2006.
- Valerie Paine petitioned for probate alleging John lacked testamentary capacity and that the 2002–2004 wills were the product of Odette’s undue influence.
- Odette largely controlled estate planning; a 2004 will was admitted to probate while Valerie’s 1995 will and the February 3, 2004 will were not resolved at trial.
- Medical records show dementia symptoms from 2001 onward; neuropsychological testing in 2001 suggested significant cognitive impairment.
- Attorney drafting the wills did not meet with John in person during 2002–2004, relying on Odette’s instructions; bank witnesses testified John appeared not confused at execution.
- Trial court found no undue influence and capacity; appellate court reverses on capacity, remanding for further proceedings; issue of capacity for 2004 will is dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2002–2004 wills were the product of undue influence | Paine argues Odette controlled estate planning by coercion | Valerie contends no coercion or unnatural disposition shown | Undue influence not proven |
| Whether John had testamentary capacity when executing the 26 June 2004 will | Paine asserts lack of capacity due to dementia and cognitive impairment | Paine bears burden; evidence insufficient to rebut capacity presumption | Paine failed to prove capacity; capacity not established; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Palmer v. Palmer, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 245 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986) (reviewing capacity with deference to trial judge findings; plain error standard)
- Goddard v. Dupree, 322 Mass. 247 (Mass. 1948) (testamentary capacity requires ability to understand nature of act and consequences)
- Erb v. Lee, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 120 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982) (plainly wrong standard; evidence sufficiency review)
- O’Rourke v. Hunter, 446 Mass. 814 (Mass. 2006) (attorney’s role in capacity matters; context of consultation decisive)
- Duchesneau v. Jaskoviak, 360 Mass. 730 (Mass. 1972) (burden on proponent; presumption of knowledge of contents)
- Rempelakis v. Russell, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 557 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006) (attorney’s conduct in execution bearing on capacity inquiry)
- Maimonides Sch. v. Coles, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 240 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008) (attorney involvement in will changes; capacity assessment factors)