How courts will hear disputes on wills and the strict test which a claim will require to be evidenced to prove or disprove undue influence and a lack of testamentary?
Poll v. Bartholomew [2006] EWHC
Summary
The case of Poll v. Bartholomew [2006] EWHC relates a claim on the issue as to whether a will was validly executed, together with testamentary capacity and the effects of undue influence. The decision of the High Court sets a wide implication on how courts will hear disputes on wills and the strict test which a claim will require to be evidenced to prove or disprove undue influence and a lack of testamentary.
Facts
The case involved a contest by Poll, the plaintiff, to the will of the testator, Bartholomew. Poll has charged that the will was sustained through undue influence and that the testator did not have the required capacity when making it. Chiefly Bartholomew was the chief beneficiary in the contested will.
The deceased had made the will significantly benefiting the claimant, causing alarm amongst other potential, interested parties, of which the other potential claimant was Poll. The claimant claimed that the deceased was not of sound mind when passing the will; moreover, there was strong evidence that the Appellant was practicing undue influence in manipulating the deceased to favor him.
Issues
The main issues that were to be established or focused on by the court were:
1. If the deceased had the capacity to pass a will.
2. The presence of the will to have been brought about by Bartholomew and under the influence mothering undue.
3. Whether the will is valid and, in case, how its meaning should be interpreted.
First Instance
The court premised its statement on a scrutiny of voluminous evidence, among the records, were medical records, the evidence of witnesses, and expert evidence as to the mental capacity of the deceased. The court, necessarily eyed the issues of the former quality of the report. For example, the presence of an extremely close relationship between bartholomew and the deceased and superimposition of coercion or unduere influence over the deceased.
The evidence in fact indicated that the deceased had testamentary capacity at the time the will was executed. The evidence also indicated that the deceased understood the nature and effect of the will, the extent of the property that was being disposed of, and the claims of potential beneficiaries.
In relation to undue influence, the court set out that there were not reasonable grounds upon which the claimant's allegations could be based. The court found that even though there existed between Bartholomew and the deceased a close interpersonal relationship, there were no convincing indicators of compulsion and influence to go to the extent of subverting the will of the deceased, the court therefore held on the same in validating the will.
Decision on Appeal
Poll appealed on the ground of the error of the lower court in assessing the medical proof about testamentary capacity and undue influence. The appeal is centered on the re-opening of the evidence on the medical side as well as in terms of the nature of the relationship that existed between Bartholomew and the deceased.
The High Court, on the appeal, restored the judgment of the trial court. The appellate court reiterated that the burden of establishing undue influence was on the claimant and that burden being one of proof; it was a heavy burden that could not easily be discharged. The court therefore held, that Poll had not discharged this burden and that Nield has established that he had the requisite testamentary capacity. That the medical and other facts did not prove a case of want of capacity.
Therefore, the court ruling underscored the rigid guideline that the court used to evaluate the cases for undue influence and testamentary capacity; thus, it emphasized that the courts will reiterate the need of residual, clear empirical approached evidence in such cases.
Comments
The case of Poll v. Bartholomew creates a beacon for the practitioner in the field and the testator in the drafting and execution of wills and the follow-up of the execution in meticulous manner. From this case, numerous salient issues do arise
1. Testamentary Capacity: This case demonstrates that, when deciding upon allegations regarding testamentary capacity, detailed and contemporaneous medical evidence is necessary. The courts will pay much detail to such evidence in a bid to establish whether the testator knew the consequences at the time of making the will.
2. Undue Influence: The burden to prove the aforesaid is upon the party impeaching the will and is heavy. Close relationship alone does not suffice, nor even some degree of persuasion. It must be proved that the free will of the testator was overborne.
3. Nature of Relationship: The kind of relationship that exists between the testator and the beneficiaries would be a deciding factor to weigh the charges of undue influence. Courts would look into whether the relationship was one of trust and confidence and whether there is any evidence of workload or pressure.
4. Evidentiary Standards: This case also displays a very high quantum of evidence, which is always demanded by courts—who will be determining the merit of the claims in will contests—ascribed. Basically, a lot of objective and detailed evidence like the medical records and many more, as well as independent-witnessed-occurrence testimonies, will be paramount to the issues at stake here.
5. Legal Precedents: In this case, there is also a precedent being set, so that in a future context, any will contest will now include, and should have among other things, a similar comparative analysis regarding the validity.
To conclude, the freedom of testation vindicates itself through Poll v. Bartholomew as, on the one hand, lack of undue influence and, on the other hand, a will of a person possessed with necessary mental capacity is implemented. Therefore, the judgment clearly attests to the careful balancing of these principles by the courts in order to safeguard the overall integrity of testamentary dispositions.
Social
