A party challenging the will must provide the court with evidence that the person did not have mental health at the time the will was signed. The court may call witnesses who have seen the person who signed the will to determine mental capacity. If the court finds that the person did not have a sound mind, the will fails. A test conducted by the courts in Banks v. Goodfellow proved to be long-lasting, as it was not a medical definition, but a simple English definition of what a person should be able to understand in order to make a will. The test is always used by a court. Although a medical opinion is potentially valid evidence, it is not decisive for capacity unless it is accepted as such by the court. [16] The testimony of the author of the will is of considerable value to the court,[17] if it has performed its work to an acceptable level. [18] Sound mind and memory refer to a person`s state of being at the time of writing a will. A healthy mind and memory means that the person has sufficient mental capacity to understand their actions. In order to determine whether the person had a sound mind and memory at the time the will was written, the court will consider whether the person understood what property they owned, whether they understood the relationship between themselves and the people who received their property, and whether the person understood the meaning and effect of the will.
Another term you may have heard of is “non compos mentis” – it`s the opposite – no common sense. In this case, the person must appoint a person with the authority to ensure that their property, finances, etc. are well maintained. So if you feel someone wasn`t sane when they wrote their will, you might be able to challenge the will. In the same way, this could also apply to someone who commits a crime – if he doesn`t understand what he`s doing, then you can`t punish him in the same way as someone who has the rational ability to understand what he did and why he did it. The test in a modern context The increasing longevity of the individual means that a person is more likely to lose the ability to make a will in old age due to dementia. In fact, dementia is the most common reason a will is questioned, although any mental disorder can lead to a loss of capacity. This is an important question for the writer, who needs to know not only the legal aptitude test, but also its implications, in order to record his relevant comments about the testator and to be able to form an opinion on the capacity of his client. This, coupled with a much greater importance of negligence claims against testamentary writers,[21] means that a careful understanding of what the author should do becomes essential.
Will capacity Testimony capacity is the mental capacity required to make a valid will. The current test is Banks v Goodfellow (1870). [8] This case concerned the validity of John Banks` will. In modern terms, he would most likely be described as a paranoid schizophrenic. He suffered from illusions that he was being persecuted by demons (they were sometimes visible to him) and also by a deceased local grocer. His will was challenged on the grounds that he was mentally ill and therefore unable to make a will. [9] The will was found valid after a jury trial before Justice Brett at the Cumberland Spring Assizes in 1869. On appeal, this decision was unanimously upheld by a panel of four Queen`s Bench appeal judges.
The will turned out to be valid, uninfluenced by his delusions and considered rational, as it was in favor of his only close relative (who also lived with him). In addition, the original formulations [1], [2] and [3] are all approached in such a way that they do not require real understanding, but can understand. [13] As this is a common law test created by judges, it can be modified by judges at their discretion in light of modern circumstances.