Patterson-Fowlkes v. Chancey
291 Ga. 601
| Ga. | 2012Background
- Wright executed a will on November 1, 2005 at age 90; Wright died December 16, 2008.
- Patterson-Fowlkes (caveator) challenged testamentary capacity; probate court denied the caveat and upheld the will.
- Superior Court trial occurred with a jury verdict upholding the will; Patterson-Fowlkes moved for JNOV or new trial, denied.
- Evidence and standard of review: appellate review asks whether there is any evidence to support the jury verdict; court construes evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.
- Testamentary capacity standard: capacity requires understanding of will’s purpose, remembering property and related persons, and formulating an intelligent disposition; capacity can exist despite weak mind or minor errors; videotaped will execution and subscribing witnesses supported capacity.
- Prior health context includes 2004 hospitalization for dehydration and transient delirium, mild dementia diagnosed in 2004, ongoing competent handling of assets in 2005, and a guardianship petition filed April 2005 that may have affected Wright’s disposition of property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Wright possessed of testamentary capacity at execution? | Patterson-Fowlkes argues lack of capacity given memory lapses. | Chancey asserts witnesses and videotape show capacity. | Yes; evidence supported capacity at execution. |
| Did Wright have capacity in the months surrounding execution? | Patterson-Fowlkes contends declining capacity around 2004–2005. | Chancey notes continued competence and absence of challenged capacity. | Yes; record showed sufficient capacity beyond execution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strong v. Holden, 287 Ga. 482 (Ga. 2010) (testator capacity is modest; need rational disposition)
- Wilson v. Lane, 279 Ga. 492 (Ga. 2005) (decided and rational desire required for disposition of property)
- Prine v. Blanton, 290 Ga. 307 (Ga. 2012) (prima facie capacity shown by subscribing witnesses)
- Georgia Power Co. v. Irvin, 267 Ga. 760 (Ga. 1997) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence to support verdict)
- Griffin v. Barrett, 183 Ga. 152 (Ga. 1936) (anything less than total absence of mind does not destroy capacity)