In challenging a will?

Question

William Tudor’s aunt, Mary Tudor, died in October 2006. Mary’s will left all her property to her niece, Andrea Taylor, her only other surviving heir. One provision of her will stated that Andrea was receiving everything because William was already a millionaire and didn’t need any more money. William filed suit challenging the will on various grounds.

At trial, William testified as follows: (1) that Mary was insane on the date the will was signed; (2) that Mary was intoxicated just about every day; (3) that Mary was in very poor health at the time she signed the will; (4) that his net worth – including the value of all his property – is $200,000.00; and (5) that the signature on the will is a forgery.

William is not an expert as to any of the matters covered by his testimony. Should any of the testimony be allowed? What objections should the opposing attorney make? How should the judge rule? What additional facts might the judge need to know before making a ruling?

Answer 1

This is a law school exam question if ever I've seen one. The way to go about answering such a question would be to thoroughly discuss all of the issues related to the questions raised.  However, since I have been out of law school for many years, I am not in the habit of answering these any more, and I've found that the issues raised by such "hypothetical" questions rarely come up in any single real case.  

But since you obviously want an answer, I will tell you the following:

1)  William's testimony as to the sanity of Mary is irrelevant unless he is a qualified medical expert (most states would have required disclosure prior to trial) - no objection by opposing counsel is necessary since the testimony is merely a speculative opinion by a non-expert.

2) Unless William testifies that he has personal knowledge that Mary was  intoxicated AT THE TIME she signed the Will, such testimony would also be irrelevant. Her habits in this regard again are merely a speculative opinion, and do not bear on the issue of the authenticity of signature or intent to dispose of her property.

3) The fact that Mary was in poor health at the time she signed her will is also completely irrelevant, unless there is supporting evidence that such illness affected her mental faculties.

4)  William's actual net worth is also irrelevant - just because Mary stated a motive in her Will that may have been factually inaccurate does not negate the action of the bequest; and finally,

5) that the signature on the Will is a forgery.  This is the only testimony that MAY have merit, but such testimony depends upon the proper predicate being for such testimony (i.e. Does William have personal knowledge of the normal signature of Aunt Mary; how does he have such knowledge; etc.) by William or other witnesses.  It is not the Judges role to investigate or develop the facts of the case.  If the signature is really a forgery, then expert testimony should be offered to prove the fact.  An allegation of such a fact by an interested party such as William would be highly suspect and would require independent corroborating evidence.  

All of the testimony should be"allowed", since most of it is irrelevant and therefore harmless.  If I were opposing counsel I would object to any testimony regarding the authenticity of Mary's signature.

Based upon the limited facts and testimony of this question, the Judge should rule against the challenge and the Will should stand.