PROBATE CORNER
I May Be Insane , But I ’ m Not Incapacitated !
DAVID M . GARTEN
An “ insane delusion ” is a spontaneous conception and acceptance as a fact , of that which has no real existence except in imagination . The conception must be persistently adhered to against all evidence and reason [ Miami Rescue Mission , Inc . vs . Roberts , 943 So . 2d 274 ( Fla . 3rd DCA 2006 )]. It is a belief in things impossible , or a belief in things possible , but so improbable under the surrounding circumstances , that no person of sound mind could give them credence [ Johnson v . Johnson , 105 Md . 81 , 65 A . 918 ( Md . App . 1907 )].
As a general rule , an insane delusion " is not a general defect of the mind ; it is an insanity directed to something specific such as a particular person or thing . A testator can be laboring under the influence of an insane delusion while otherwise acting and appearing competent [ Benjamin v . Woodring , 268 Md . 593 , 601 , 303 A . 2d 779 ( 1973 )]. Therefore , instead of considering the testator ’ s mental abilities - as is done in most capacity decisions - the insane delusion doctrine focuses on why the testator believed what he believed and why he did what he did .
There are two prerequisites to vacating the testator ’ s actions on the basis of an insane delusion : First , the contestant must show that the testator suffered from an insane delusion ; and second , the contestant must show that the testator ’ s actions were the product of that insane delusion ( i . e ., cause & effect ). Proving that a testator suffered from an insane delusion , however , may be more difficult than one might expect . How do you distinguish between a testator suffering from an insane delusion and a testator who has merely reached a wrong , mean-spirited , or “ stupid ” conclusion ? The majority of the cases supporting an insane delusion share the following common features : ( a ) negative false beliefs about the character of a particular close relative of the testator that were not connected to any reality or true experience ; ( b ) an illogical thought process or generalization not linked to the negative false belief to some true fact about the subject of the delusion ; ( c ) no evidence that the subject of the delusion had done whatever it was the testator was convinced
he or she had done ; ( d ) no evidence that the subject of the delusion had done anything negative toward the testator ( or anyone else ) that could account , even irrationally , for the testator ' s wrath ; ( e ) the delusions do not suggest mistake , unreasonableness , confusion , stubbornness , poor judgment , denial , or willfulness ; and ( f ) the delusions can only could be explained by a deranged mind .
In addition , proving that the testator ’ s actions were the product of that insane delusion may also be problematic . For example , suppose that the testator is suffering from an insane delusion that the moon is made of green cheese . It is unlikely that this insane delusion would invalidate the testator ’ s will because the delusion likely has nothing to do with the testator ’ s estate plan . To prove the will is a product of the insane delusion , the contestant must show that the insane delusion caused the testator to dispose of his property in a way that he would not have otherwise done . Thus , the fact-finder must determine what the ( now deceased ) testator would have done if he were not suffering from an insane delusion .
What is not an insane delusion ? Any belief which arises from reasoning based upon a known premise , however imperfect the process may be or however illogical the conclusion reached , is not an insane delusion . What is significant is not the truth or falsity of the belief , but rather whether such belief arose from reasoning from a known premise [ Estate of Edwards , 433 So . 2d 1349 ( Fla . 5th DCA 1983 )]. One cannot be said to act under an insane delusion if his condition of mind results from a belief or inference , however irrational or unfounded , drawn from facts which are shown to exist . Thus , if there is any evidence , however slight or inconclusive , which might have a tendency to create a belief , such belief is not a delusion . Under this rule , even if one ' s beliefs are inaccurate , a mistaken belief does not justify overturning the testator ’ s actions where there is any evidence supporting the belief [ Ho v . Bronken ( Estate of Shartsis ), 2016 Cal . App . Unpub . LEXIS 6931 , 2016 WL 5092712 ( Cal . App . 2016 )].
EXAMPLES - INSANE DELUSION FOUND
In Estate of Hodtum , 267 So . 2d 686 ( Fla . 2nd DCA 1972 ), decedent executed a will wherein he gave the residue of his estate to a Masonic lodge . Five months later , decedent went to the office of his attorney who drafted the prior will and requested him to draft a new will deleting the Masonic lodge as a beneficiary because he had been kicked out or was black-balled by the Masons . In response , his attorney advised him that he had received a letter a few days earlier from the Masonic lodge which contained a resolution setting up a fund for the decedent ' s anticipated bequest and that there was no way in the world he could have been kicked out . Decedent refused to accept this information whereupon his attorney called the lodge in the presence of the decedent and his stockbroker . This telephone call revealed that the decedent was not and never had been expelled from the Masons , had never had any charges leveled against him , and that he was a member in good standing . Decedent , even upon this evidence , persisted in his belief that he had been kicked out of the Masons . His attorney , after ascertaining that the decedent had no basis upon which to believe that he had been kicked out of the Masons , refused to draft a new will . Decedent subsequently retained a new attorney who drafted a will deleting the Masonic lodge as a beneficiary . The lower court revoked the admission of the subsequent will to probate on grounds that decedent was suffering from an insane delusion . The order was affirmed on appeal because there was no evidence to establish any basis for decedent ' s belief that his membership in the Lodge had been revoked .
( Continued on next page ) PBCBA BAR BULLETIN 17