PROBATE CORNER
DAVID M . GARTEN
I May Be Insane , But I ’ m Not Incapacitated ! ( Continued )
In Miami Rescue Mission , Inc . v . Roberts , 943 So . 2d 274 ( Fla . 3rd DCA 2006 ), decedent executed a will while hospitalized and died the following day . The effect of decedent ’ s will was to disinherit her longtime caregiver and friend , Roberts , because she believed that Roberts had abandoned her , " let her dog die ," and was stealing from her . In reality , Roberts visited the decedent each and every day and that each visit began with Roberts reassuring decedent that her dog was doing fine . The court found that this reality , when contrasted with the decedent ’ s continued belief that Roberts was not visiting her and not caring for her dog , coupled with her misidentification of Roberts , was sufficiently unreasonable to permit the trial court to determine that the decedent was suffering from an insane delusion .
EXAMPLES – INSANE DELUSION NOT FOUND
In Estate of Edwards , 433 So . 2d 1349 ( Fla . 5th DCA 1983 ), the decedent executed a will one week prior to his death wherein he devised his entire estate to a casual employee of five years . Soon after the will was admitted to probate , decedent ’ s relatives filed a petition for revocation of probate on the basis of insane delusion arising from his mistrust of his own family and his suspicion of people in general , including customers at his place of business . The lower court denied the petition and the appellate court affirmed . The court found that there was a basis for the testator ' s actions and his mistrust of his family , and that the relative ’ s own psychiatrist testified that there was a basis for the testator ' s feelings , beliefs , and fears against his family . The evidence also indicated that the testator had always been suspicious and secretive and always protective of his property . The trial court found that decedent “ was naturally and justifiably concerned about shoplifting in the operation of his business due to the nature of that business and the physical layout of his store ." Decedent was upset when some of his family members entered his property without his permission during one of his hospital stays , and on one occasion had ordered one of his brothers off his property . He suspected that an earlier break-in and robbery at his property had
been engineered by another brother and he mentioned these incidents to the lawyer who drew the will in question . The trial court found other instances of differences between decedent and his siblings , including correspondence requesting that they stay off his property . The court stated : “ Whether we agree that his feelings towards his brothers and sisters were justified is not the point at issue . What is determinative is the fact that those feelings arose from reasoning or a known premise . They had real existence and did not exist only in decedent ' s imagination .”
In Dougherty v . Rubenstein , 172 Md . App . 269 ; 914 A . 2d 184 ( Md . App . 2007 ), decedent ’ s son , Jay , sued to vacate his father ’ s will on the basis of the insane delusion that he had stolen his father ’ s money . The lower court denied the petition . The appellate court , in affirming the lower court , reasoned : “ In this case , the delusion entered James ' s mind when he was a resident , not by choice , of the Cantler Home , which for him was a terrible experience that he blamed completely upon Jay . As James saw it , he was confined to a home similar to a nursing home , without privacy or access to a telephone , in the company of residents who were enfeebled by old age , and with no hope of being let out . The witnesses who testified about having visited James in the Cantler Home confirmed that the accommodations were insufficient for him and that he felt like he had been imprisoned -- and that he was of the view that Jay had failed him by forcing him in and by not coming to his aid to get out . From the time he arrived at the Cantler Home forward , James was convinced that Jay had betrayed him by not letting him go home instead . James ' s delusion that Jay also had betrayed him by stealing his money was a generalization , albeit not a logical one , drawn from his true belief that Jay had been the decision-maker who had kept him in the Cantler Home until his sisters rescued him . In essence , this is what the trial judge found from the evidence : that James ' s delusion was an outgrowth of a stubborn conviction that Jay had " done something wrong " by " imprisoning " him at the Cantler Home . Although it was false , and it prompted James to disinherit Jay , it was not an inexplicable delusion that only could have come into being as the product of an insane mind .”
UPCOMING PBCBA CLE WEBINARS
Wednesday , Nov . 4th 11:45 AM - 1:00 PM Live via Zoom Road to the Bench : A Candid Discussion on the Pathways to the Bench
Monday , Nov . 9th 1:30 PM - 2:30 PM Live via Zoom Mental Health with Sheila of Jupiter Medical Center
Friday , Nov . 13th 9:00 AM - 2:30 PM Live via Zoom Virtual Mental Health First Aid
Register by visiting PalmBeachBar . org
PALMBEACHBAR . ORG 18