Weedon v. Weedon, 720 S.E.2d 552

Dorothy Weedon, elderly testatrix, diagnosed with myeloma; Mary Ann Weedon became primary caregiver and sought legal assistance for a new will and related documents.
2003 will drafted; 2007 will drafted with Mary Ann as main beneficiary; 2008 will drafted after Dorothy’s hospitalization and nearing surgery.
Garnett (assistant) and Low (attorney) prepared the 2008 will based on Garnett’s notes; Low did not meet Dorothy personally.
Dorothy executed the 2008 will in the hospital with witnesses; Mary Ann was present and had substantial influence in the process.
Trial court held Dorothy lacked testamentary capacity and that undue influence occurred, partly due to attorney’s delegation and Mary Ann’s fiduciary role; appellate court reversed, upholding capacity and rejecting undue influence; remand to admit the 2008 will to probate and withdraw the 2007 will from probate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Testamentary capacity at execution of the 2008 will	Weedon contends Dorothy lacked capacity at execution.	Mary Ann contends capacity was present given Dorothy’s lucid moments and witnesses’ observations.	Capacity existed; presumption overcome; trial court erred.
Effect of attorney's delegation on capacity determination	Delegation to a non-attorney cannot immunize lack of capacity.	Attorney’s role not diminished by delegation; drafter’s testimony supports capacity.	Delegation did not invalidate capacity assessment; no error based on delegation.
Whether there was undue influence over Dorothy	Mary Ann had close relationship, power of attorney, and manipulated Dorothy.	No clear and convincing proof that Dorothy lacked free will; presumption rebutted by witnesses.	Undue influence not proven by clear and convincing evidence; presumption rebutted.

Parish v. Parish, 281 Va. 191 (Va. 2011) (testamentary capacity and weight of witnesses; presumption when capacity exists; weighing evidence at execution time)
Gibbs v. Gibbs, 239 Va. 197 (Va. 1990) (burden and presumption of testamentary capacity; preponderance standard)
Gill v. Gill, 219 Va. 1101 (Va. 1979) (undue influence framework; dominion by caregiver relevant to coercion analysis)
Pace v. Richmond, 231 Va. 216 (Va. 1986) (sickness alone not sufficient to invalidate a will; free will required for undue influence analysis)
Thomason v. Carlton, 221 Va. 845 (Va. 1981) (timing of capacity assessment at time of execution; weight to witnesses present at execution)
Martin v. Phillips, 235 Va. 523 (Va. 1988) (undue influence standard and requirement of clear and convincing evidence)