Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-17T06:17:58.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contemporaneous assessment of testamentary capacity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Kenneth I. Shulman ,
Carmelle Peisah ,
Robin Jacoby ,
Jeremia Heinik  and
Sanford Finkel
Kenneth I. Shulman*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Carmelle Peisah
Affiliation:
Academic Department for Old Age Psychiatry, Prince of Wales Hospital, and University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Robin Jacoby
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Section of Old Age Psychiatry, University of Oxford, The Warneford Hospital, Oxford, U.K.
Jeremia Heinik
Affiliation:
Margoletz Psychogeriatric Center, Ichilov Hospital, Tel Aviv, and Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Sanford Finkel
Affiliation:
University of Chicago Medical School, Wilmette, Illinois, U.S.A.
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Dr. K. I. Shulman, Department of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4N 3M5, Canada. Phone: +1 416 480 4079; Fax: +1 416 480 6022. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: Challenges to wills on the basis of lack of testamentary capacity and/or undue influence are likely to increase over the next generation. Since contemporaneous assessment of testamentary capacity can be a powerful influence on the outcome of such challenges, there will be an associated increase in requests for expert assessment of testamentary capacity. There is a need to provide such potential experts with the knowledge and guidelines necessary to conduct assessments that will be helpful to the judicial system.

Methods: A subcommittee of the International Psychogeriatric Association (IPA) task force on “Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence” was formed to establish guidelines for contemporaneous assessment of testamentary capacity.

Results: The task-specific criteria for testamentary capacity as outlined by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn in the well-known Banks v. Goodfellow case are described. Additional issues are identified for probing and documentation. This is designed to determine whether the testator can formulate a coherent, rational testamentary plan that connects his/her beliefs, values and relationships with the proposed disposition of assets. Rules of engagement by the expert assessor are defined as well as an approach to the clinical examination for testamentary capacity resulting in a clear and relevant report.

Conclusion: Guidelines for experts who are asked to provide a contemporaneous opinion on testamentary capacity should help to inform disputes resulting from challenges to wills. A consistent clinical approach will help the courts to make their determinations.

Keywords

will challengesexpert assessment
Type
Review Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , June 2009 , pp. 433 - 439
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Banks v. Goodfellow (1870). LR5 QB, 549.Google Scholar
Berg, J. W., Applebaum, P. S., Lidz, C. W. and Parker, L. S. (2001). Informed Consent. Legal Theory and Clinical Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Champine, P. (2006). Expertise and instinct in the assessment of testamentary capacity. Villanova Law Review, 51, 25–94.Google Scholar
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. and McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frolick, L. A. (2001). The strange interplay of testamentary capacity and the doctrine of undue influence: are we protecting older testators or overriding individual preferences? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 24, 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating Competencies: Forensic Assessments and Instruments. New York: Kluwer Academic Press/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
Havens, J. J. and Schervish, P. G. (2003). Why the $41 trillion wealth transfer estimate is still valid: a review of challenges and questions. Journal of Gift Planning, 7, 11–15, 47–50.Google Scholar
Heinik, J., Werner, P. and Lin, R. (1999). How do cognitively impaired elderly patients define “testament”: reliability and validity of the Testament Definition Scale. Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 36, 23–28.Google ScholarPubMed
Hull, R. and Hull, I. (1996). Suspicious circumstances in relation to testamentary capacity and undue influence. In Estates: Planning, Administration, and Litigation (pp. 77–87) Law Society of Upper Canada, Special Lectures. Toronto: Carswell.Google Scholar
Jacoby, R. and Steer, P. (2007). How to assess capacity to make a will. BMJ, 335, 155–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenward v Adams (1975). The Times, 29 November.Google Scholar
Marson, D. and Hebert, T. (2005). Civil competencies in older adults with dementia: medical-decision making capacity, financial capacity, and testamentary capacity. In Larabee, G. J. (ed.), Forensic Neuropsychology: A Scientific Approach (pp. 334–377). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marson, D. C., Huthwaite, J. and Hebert, K. (2004). Testamentary capacity and undue influence in the elderly: A jurisprudent therapy perspective. Law and Psychology Review, 28, 71–96.Google Scholar
Moye, J. and Marson, D. C. (2007). Assessment of decision-making capacity in older adults: an emerging area of practice and research. Journal of Gerontology, 62B, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peisah, C. (2005). Reflections on changes in defining testamentary capacity. International Psychogeriatrics, 17, 709–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peisah, C. et al. (2009). The wills of older people: risk factors for undue influence (Review). International Psychogeriatrics, 21, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posener, H. D. and Jacoby, R. (2008). Testamentary capacity. In Jacoby, R., Oppeinheimer, C., Dening, T. and Thomas, A. (eds.), Oxford Textbook of Old Age Psychiatry (pp. 753–760). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shulman, K. and Feinstein, A. (2006). Quick Cognitive Screening for Clinicians. Rev. paperback edn. Oxford: Informa Healthcare.Google Scholar
Shulman, K. I., Cohen, C. A. and Hull, I. (2005). Psychiatric issues in retrospective challenges of testamentary capacity. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20, 63–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shulman, K. I., Cohen, C. A., Kirsh, F. C., Hull, I. M. and Champine, P. R. (2007). Assessment of testamentary capacity and vulnerability to undue influence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 722–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spar, J. E. and Garb, A. S. (1992). Assessing competency to make a will. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 168–174.Google ScholarPubMed
Sprehe, D. J. and Kerr, A. L. (1996). Use of legal terms in will contests: implications for psychiatrists. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 24, 255–265.Google ScholarPubMed
Wood, S. and Moye, J. (eds.) (2008). Assessment of Older Adults with Diminished Capacity: A Handbook for Psychologists. Washington, DC: American Bar Association and American Psychological Association.Google Scholar