Title: Brock v. Kelsoe

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

Rel: March 26, 2021
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. 
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2020-2021
____________________
1200141
____________________
Nel Brock
v.
Philip Kelsoe
Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court
(CV-18-20)
SELLERS, Justice.
 
Shirley Temple Carr Ralph ("Mrs. Ralph") executed a will naming
Philip Kelsoe ("the proponent") the executor and sole beneficiary of her
1200141
estate.   Mrs. Ralph's sister, Nel Brock,  contested the will, arguing that
Mrs. Ralph had lacked the mental capacity to execute the will and that
the will was the product of undue influence on the part of the proponent. 
The Morgan Circuit Court entered a summary judgment in favor of the
proponent, and Brock appealed.  We reverse and remand.
I.   Facts and Procedural History
Mrs. Ralph executed her will on March 21, 2017; she died on April
13, 2018, at the age of 76.  Mrs. Ralph was predeceased by her husband
who died in January 2017 and  two children -- both of whom had no issue.1
Immediately after Mr. Ralph died, the proponent, one of Mrs. Ralph's
neighbors, began assisting Mrs. Ralph with various tasks, including
taking her shopping, undertaking general household chores, helping her
refinance the mortgage on her house, driving her to doctors' appointments,
having her prescriptions filled, and dispensing all of her medications. 
According to the proponent, Mrs. Ralph had asked him in March 2017 for
the recommendation of an attorney who could draft a power of attorney for
1Mrs. Ralph's son died in December 2001, and her daughter died in
August 2016.  
2
1200141
her. The proponent recommended Mark Johnson, made an appointment
for Mrs. Ralph to meet with Johnson, drove her to that appointment, and
waited in the lobby while she consulted with Johnson. On March 21, 2017,
the proponent drove Mrs. Ralph back to Johnson's office, at which time
she executed a power of attorney in favor of the proponent and a will
naming him executor and sole beneficiary of her estate.2 According to the
proponent, Mrs. Ralph never mentioned beforehand that she was
executing a will. The proponent stated that, after Mrs. Ralph executed the
will, she asked him to keep it, as well as the power of attorney, in the
proponent's safe. The proponent did not tell Mrs. Ralph's family about the
will. The proponent also indicated that Mrs. Ralph had added his name on
her checking account.  At some point after Mrs. Ralph executed the will,
the proponent approved of or allowed one of his acquaintances, Kathy
Mitchell, to move into Mrs. Ralph's home.  Mrs. Ralph signed a contract
2In the will, Mrs. Ralph devised all of her "real property" to the
proponent.  Although Mark Johnson, the drafting attorney, testified that
Mrs. Ralph had wanted the proponent to have "everything," including her
personal property, the will did not include a residuary clause; Johnson
testified that the omission was unintentional.  
3
1200141
agreeing to pay Mitchell $600 a month to live with her, run errands, and
help around the house, etc.  The agreement also provided that, after Mrs.
Ralph died, Mitchell would take possession of a specific vehicle owned by
Mrs. Ralph.  After the death of  Mrs. Ralph, the proponent petitioned the
Morgan Probate Court to admit the will to probate.  Brock  filed a will
contest, alleging that Mrs. Ralph had lacked the mental capacity to
execute the will because of  "mind altering" medications she had been
prescribed and was taking at the time the will was executed.  Brock also
argued that the will was the product of undue influence on the part of the
proponent.  The will contest was transferred to the circuit court pursuant
to § 43-8-198, Ala. Code 1975.  The proponent moved the circuit court for
a summary judgment, which Brock opposed.  After a hearing, the circuit
court entered a summary judgment in favor of the proponent.  Brock
appealed.  
II.  Standard of Review
This Court reviews a summary judgment de novo, and we use the
same standard used by the trial court to determine whether the evidence
presented to the trial court presents a genuine issue of material fact.  Rule
4
1200141
56(c), Ala. R. Civ. P.; Nettles v. Pettway, 306 So. 3d 873 (Ala. 2020).  The
movant for a summary judgment has the initial burden of producing
evidence indicating that there is no genuine issue of material fact.  Once
the movant produces evidence establishing a right to a summary
judgment, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to present substantial
evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.  We consider all the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, indulging every
reasonable inference and resolving any doubts in the nonmovant's favor. 
Id. 
III.  Analysis
A.  Testamentary Capacity
 The law presumes that every person of legal age has the capacity to
execute a will, and the person challenging the will has the burden of
proving a lack of testamentary capacity.   Allen v. Sconyers, 669 So. 2d
113 (Ala. 1995).   A testator has testamentary capacity when, at the time
the will is executed, the testator (1) knows his or her estate and the
property to be devised and bequeathed, (2) knows the natural objects of
his or her bounty, and (3) understands that he or she is making a will. 
5
1200141
Smith v. Vice, 641 So. 2d 785, 786 (Ala. 1994).  The key inquiry is whether
the testator had testamentary capacity on the day the will was executed,
which may be inferred from a witness's observation of the testator's
mental and physical condition either before or immediately after execution
of the will.  Fletcher v. DeLoach, 360 So. 2d 316 (Ala. 1978).  
In this case, the evidence is conflicting regarding Mrs. Ralph's
mental state immediately before and at the time of the execution of the
will.  In support of his motion for a summary judgment, the proponent
presented the deposition testimony of Mark Johnson, the attorney who
drafted the will.   According to Johnson, when he met with Mrs. Ralph, he
was satisfied that she was legally competent to execute a will.  Johnson
characterized Mrs. Ralph as "happy and pleasant" and stated that she
appeared lucid at the time she signed the will. Johnson stated that Mrs.
Ralph had told him that she wanted the proponent to have her entire
estate because the proponent "was a good neighbor."  When questioned by
the proponent's attorney, Johnson stated that he had asked Mrs. Ralph
numerous qualifying questions, including whether she had children:
6
1200141
"Q.  Do you remember specifically what qualifying questions
you might have asked?
"A.  Did she have any children?  Did she -- where are they
living?  I think [Mrs. Ralph said] they were living out of state,
I believe.  And they never came around.  She was kind of
getting ill about that, I believe.  She was kind of upset at that
point.  But you could tell that visually bothered her.  And so --
then she wanted to leave [everything to the proponent]
because he was such a good neighbor, and he helped her so
much.
"....
"Q.  Did you advise her ... that by not putting her relatives in
the will, they would not be entitled to disbursement under the
will?
"A.  Yes, uh-huh.  I think I also put [that] in the will, which is
pretty much my common standard practice, if I know the
children's names, it says intentionally omit the following."
Notably, Johnson's testimony regarding Mrs. Ralph's children is troubling
because Mrs. Ralph had no children living at the time she met with
Johnson and there is no declaration in the will regarding omitted children.
Therefore, it is not clear whether Mrs. Ralph actually told Johnson that
she had children who were living or whether Johnson simply did not recall
the entirety of his conversation with Mrs. Ralph when they met.  More
critically, the will failed to comply with Mrs. Ralph's direction because
7
1200141
there was no residuary clause to bequeath her personal property to the
proponent.  The lack of clarity as to these material facts could lead a jury
to infer that Mrs. Ralph was unable to appreciate the division of her
property such that the will she signed was not a true expression of her
intentions, thus making summary judgment inappropriate. 
In response to the proponent's summary-judgment motion, Brock
submitted the affidavit of Dr. David Clay Campbell, who had treated Mrs.
Ralph from December 2014 until April 2018, when she died.  According to
Dr. Campbell, Mrs. Ralph experienced "extreme and debilitating grief"
after her husband died.  He stated that she had been diagnosed with
"generalized anxiety disorder, fibromyalgia, chronic  kidney disease,
hypertension, rheumatoid and osteoarthritis."  He stated that, to treat
those conditions, he had prescribed several medications that induce
"mind-altering" effects, including Ambien, Percocet, Flexeril, Lyrica,
trazodone, and Xanax.   Dr. Campbell described in detail the effects of
each of those drugs and stated that the use of all of them concurrently
renders the user incapable of possessing mental capacity for any act
beyond the most basic functions.  Dr. Campbell explained that, while
8
1200141
taking those type of medications, some people may appear alert and
awake and be able to converse at a basic level.  He stated that, despite
such an outward appearance, "the cognitive functioning and memory of
this person would be severely impaired."   Dr. Campbell indicated that, on
March 13, 2017, he examined Mrs. Ralph because she wanted to discuss
her medications.  During that visit, Dr. Campbell stated, Mrs. Ralph
appeared "frail" and "disheveled," was exhibiting a "wobbly gait," and
reported that she had been falling at least once a week. He further
indicated that, at that time,  she was suffering from "confusion, significant
weight loss [approximately 40 lbs.], fatigue, and weakness," and that she
was "depressed and anxious."  Dr. Campbell stated that he had "explicitly"
discussed with Mrs. Ralph the medications she was taking, specifically 
Ambien, Percocet, Lyrica, trazodone, and Xanax, and that she had
confirmed that she was taking those medications as prescribed.  Dr.
Campbell finally stated that he understood that Mrs. Ralph had executed
a will on March 21, 2017, and that he had examined Mrs. Ralph again on
March 30, 2017, at which time she indicated that she was taking all of her
medications as prescribed.  Finally, Dr. Campbell stated that, in his
9
1200141
professional opinion, Mrs. Ralph was "incapable of knowingly executing
a legal document" such as will:
"During this time, Mrs. Ralph, in my professional
opinion, was incapable of knowingly executing a legal
document such as a Last Will and Testament.  Her grief,
depression, her physical illnesses and the pain arising from
them, and her faithful use of the mind-altering medications
prescribed to her would, in my reasonable medical opinion,
render her mentally incapable of understanding what she was
doing."
Although Dr. Campbell did not examine Mrs. Ralph on March 21,
2017, the day she executed her will, his testimony cannot be discounted
because he examined her before and after that time and provided an
expert opinion on her general mental capacity. Given the conflicting
evidence from the drafting attorney and the treating physician, we
conclude that the question whether Mrs. Ralph possessed testamentary
capacity to execute the challenged will is a question of fact that is not
appropriate for resolution by a summary judgment.  See Ex parte Helms,
873 So. 2d 1139  (Ala. 2003) (holding that (1) evidence of the testator's
consumption of Lortab before and after the date she executed her will, (2)
evidence of the effects and side effects of Lortab,  and (3) evidence of the
10
1200141
testator's physical pain and mental distress were sufficient to rebut the
legal presumption in favor of the testator's testamentary capacity and to
create a genuine issue of fact to be decided by the finder of fact); see also
Denson v. Moses, 2 So. 3d 847 (Ala.  Civ. App. 2008) (holding that genuine
issue of material fact existed as to testamentary capacity based on doctor's
equivocal testimony questioning the testator's competency to execute will
and testimony of the drafter of the will who believed that the testator was
competent to execute will). Cf., however, Maxwell v. Dawkins, 974 So. 2d
282 (Ala. 2006) (affirming summary judgment in will contest, noting that
the contestant had failed to identify any evidence in the record, from a
medical expert or otherwise, indicating that medications such as Xanax,
Percocet, morphine, and Oxycontin had affected the testator's mental
acuity). 
B.  Undue Influence
In order to establish a prima facie case of undue influence, the
person contesting the will is required to offer evidence
"(1) that a confidential relationship existed between a favored
beneficiary and the testator; (2) that the influence of or for the
beneficiary was dominant and controlling in that relationship;
11
1200141
and (3) that there was undue activity on the part of the
dominant party in procuring the execution of the will."
Clifton v. Clifton, 529 So. 2d 980, 983 (Ala. 1988).
With regard to the first element, "[a] confidential relationship arises
when one comes to rely upon and trust another in one's important affairs." 
Sconyers, 669 So. 2d at 117.  It is undisputed that, after Mr. Ralph died,
the proponent assisted Mrs. Ralph with various tasks, both personal and
business in nature. Mrs. Ralph also added the proponent's name on her
checking account, executed a power of  attorney in favor of the proponent,
and executed a will naming the proponent as executor and sole beneficiary
of her estate. The proponent concedes that he had a confidential
relationship with Mrs. Ralph at the time she executed the will.  However,
he disputes that he was a favored beneficiary.  This Court has defined a
"favored beneficiary" as:
"One who, in the circumstances of the particular case, has
been favored over others having equal claim to the testator's
bounty. An unnatural discrimination, leading to a natural
inference that advantage has been taken by one in position so
to do; and shown to have been busy in getting such will
executed."
12
1200141
Cook v. Morton, 241 Ala. 188, 192, 1 So. 2d 890, 892 (1941).  The phrase
"having equal claim to the testator's bounty" does not refer to the laws of
descent and distribution but, rather, pertains to the facts of the particular
case.  Windham v. Pope, 474 So. 2d 1075, 1077 (Ala. 1985).  In other
words,  a court must determine within a subset of possible beneficiaries
those individuals or institutions who under normal circumstances could
expect to receive a devise or bequest from a testator but are precluded
from benefiting because of the actions of someone outside of this group. 
The proponent contends that he was not a favored beneficiary because
Mrs. Ralph was a widow and had no surviving children; thus, he says,
there was no evidence indicating that she was closer to some other person
or persons than she was to him.  The proponent relies on the deposition
testimony of Johnson, who stated that Mrs. Ralph had wanted to leave her
entire estate to the proponent because her family "didn't help her much"
and "didn't come around."  However, it is unclear from Johnson's
testimony whether he used the term "family" to reference Mrs. Ralph's
children, her siblings, or both.  For example, in his deposition, Johnson
made no mention of specific family members such as siblings.  However,
13
1200141
as indicated, he did reference children, stating that "I think [Mrs. Ralph
said] they were living out of state," "they never came around," and "she
wanted to leave  [everything to the proponent] because he was such a good
neighbor."   As indicated, Mrs. Ralph did not have any children living at
the time she met with Johnson. In any event, Brock testified in her
deposition that Mrs. Ralph was close to her family, i.e., her siblings, and
that, immediately after Mr. Ralph died, the proponent had "inserted"
himself into Mrs. Ralph's business and personal affairs and had taken
affirmative measures to isolate Mrs. Ralph from her family.  According to
Brock, the proponent changed the locks on Mrs. Ralph's house, forwarded
her telephone to his telephone, took charge of her medical affairs, and
neglected to tell the family whenever he took Mrs. Ralph to the hospital
and/or whenever she was admitted to the hospital. Brock also stated that,
in January 2017, while at Mr. Ralph's funeral, Mrs. Ralph had discussed
making a will and that Mrs. Ralph had subsequently told Brock that she
"wanted her things to go to the family."  Carla Highfield, Mrs. Ralph's
niece, submitted an affidavit stating that, after Mr. Ralph died, Mrs.
Ralph had gathered all of her siblings and had told them that, if anything
14
1200141
happened to her, she wanted her three remaining siblings "to get
everything" and that she had asked her bother, James, if he would be her
power of attorney.  Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to
Brock, we conclude that she presented substantial evidence from which 
a jury could infer that the favoritism Mrs. Ralph showed the proponent by
making him the sole beneficiary of her estate was an unnatural
discrimination because,  prior to the time the proponent befriended Mrs.
Ralph, she had had a close relationship with her siblings and had wanted
them to have her property, thus implying that Mrs. Ralph's siblings had
had an equal claim to her benevolence but that the proponent had placed
himself in an advantageous position at their expense, preventing their
inheritance.  
With regard to the second element of undue influence, this Court has
held that "the fact that a beneficiary controls the personal, business, and
household affairs of a testator is evidence of a dominant and controlling
influence."  Hayes v Apperson, 826 So. 2d 798, 804 (Ala. 2002).  "Whether
the beneficiary was the dominant party in the relationship is usually a
question of fact for the jury, and the jury may review the often
15
1200141
circumstantial evidence as to whether there were controlling influences
over the testator's behavior."  Sconyers, 669 So. 2d at 117.   Although the
proponent concedes that he enjoyed a confidential relationship with Mrs.
Ralph, he denies being the dominant party in that relationship because,
he says, Mrs. Ralph kept and balanced her own checkbook, prepared and
filed her own taxes, cooked breakfast on a daily basis, ordered her own
medication, and paid her bills by telephone. In response, Brock relied on
her prior testimony that, after Mr. Ralph died, the proponent had
"inserted" himself into Mrs. Ralph's personal and business affairs and had
taken affirmative measures to isolate her from her family.  Brock stated
that, after that time, it became very difficult to see or talk to Mrs. Ralph
and that Mrs. Brock had become "guarded and depressed."  Brock also
relied on the affidavit of David Cobb, who had been a longtime friend and
neighbor of the Ralphs.  Cobb stated in his affidavit that, as long as he
had known the Ralphs, he had never met the proponent until after Mr.
Ralph died unexpectedly, at which time, he said, the proponent began
coming around Mrs. Ralph's house on a daily basis. Cobb stated that, on
one occasion, Mrs. Ralph had asked him to check on one of her riding
16
1200141
lawnmowers and that, while doing so, the proponent showed up,
confronted him "aggressively," and told him he was not allowed to be there
and to leave.  Cobb also stated that, on another occasion, he and Brock
went to see Mrs. Ralph because they could not get in touch with her by
telephone. Cobb stated that they found Mrs. Ralph in her house
motionless and nonresponsive and, that, when they attempted to
transport her to the hospital, the proponent showed up and announced
that "he was in charge" and told them to "stand back," at which time,
Cobb said, the proponent put Mrs. Ralph in his vehicle and transported
her to the hospital.  Finally, Dr. Campbell stated the following in his
affidavit regarding his experience with the proponent: 
"Finally, I also witnessed [the proponent] attend the
appointments with Ms. Ralph.  This began almost immediately
after Ms. Ralph's husband's death. [The proponent] was a
domineering and controlling presence.  He attempted to speak
for Ms. Ralph; he attempted to make decisions for her; he tried
to influence her; he questioned her medication; he acted as
though he had control over her.  I immediately suspected that
[the proponent] was not acting in the best interest of Ms.
Ralph.  I was alarmed at the behavior he exhibited.  Due to her
grief, her extreme depressed state, the pain and physical
illness, and the effect of her medications, she was especially
susceptible to being taken advantage of."
17
1200141
 Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Brock, we conclude
that she presented substantial evidence from which a jury could infer that 
Mrs. Ralph had a confidential relationship with the proponent and that
the proponent was the dominant party in that relationship.  
The final element of an undue-influence claim is whether the
beneficiary actively interfered or was unduly active in procuring the will. 
Direct evidence regarding undue influence in the procurement of a will is
rarely available; thus, this element too may be proved by circumstantial
evidence.  Ex parte Helms, 873 So. 2d 1139 (Ala. 2003).   The evidence
indicates that Mr. Ralph died on January 30, 2017, at which time the
proponent began assisting Mrs. Ralph with various tasks, including
accompanying her to doctors' appointments and dispensing all of her
medications.  During that time, Mrs. Ralph added the proponent's name
to her checking account and, according to the proponent, asked for the
recommendation of an attorney who could prepare a power of attorney  for
her.  The proponent recommended Johnson, and he took Mrs. Ralph to
meet with Johnson.  On March 21, 2017, less than two months after Mr.
Ralph died, Mrs. Ralph executed a power of attorney in favor of the
18
1200141
proponent and a will naming him the sole beneficiary of her estate. The
proponent took possession of the will, placed it in his safe, and concealed
it from Mrs. Ralph's family. Given the circumstances surrounding the
timing of the execution of the will, the proponent's dominion over the will,
and Dr. Campbell's testimony regarding Mrs. Ralph's deteriorating
physical and mental state, we conclude that a jury could infer that the
proponent was unduly active in the procurement of the will.  As indicated,
Dr. Campbell stated that, around the time Mrs. Ralph executed the will,
her health had deteriorated both mentally and physically, she was under
the influence of "mind-altering" medications, and she was easily
susceptible to being taken advantage of.  Accordingly, Brock presented
substantial evidence of all the elements necessary to submit her claim of
undue influence to a jury.  
IV.  Conclusion
We reverse the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of the
proponent and remand the cause for further proceedings.
19
1200141
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Bolin, Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., concur.
Mitchell, J., concurs specially.
Parker, C.J., concurs in the result.
20
1200141
MITCHELL, Justice (concurring specially).
I concur with the majority opinion and write specially to highlight
the differences between the evidence presented here and the evidence
presented in Taylor v. Hanks, [Ms. 1190203, Feb. 26, 2021] ___ So. 3d ___
(Ala. 2021), another recent appeal asking us to determine whether there
was substantial evidence that medication had rendered a person 
incapable of making testamentary decisions.  In contrast to the evidence
in Taylor, which I believed was deficient,  see Taylor, ___ So. 3d at ___
(Mitchell, J., concurring in the result), the evidence presented in this case
directly addressed how the medication Shirley Temple Carr Ralph ("Mrs.
Ralph") took affected her mental state.  Indeed, this case exemplifies how,
in practice, a party should produce evidence that would permit a finding
that a testator lacked capacity because of the medication he or she was
taking.
A party challenging a testator's capacity must produce evidence
showing (1) the specific medication the testator was taking at or around
the time he or she made the contested testamentary decision and (2) how
that medication affected the testator's mental acuity.  Maxwell v.
21
1200141
Dawkins, 974 So. 2d 282, 287 (Ala. 2006).  The appellant Nel Brock did
that here through the affidavit of Dr. David Clay Campbell, a physician
who had treated Mrs. Ralph for over three and a half years before her
death.  
Dr. Campbell's testimony established, first, the various medications
-- Ambien, Percocet, Flexeril, Lyrica, trazodone, and Xanax -- that Mrs.
Ralph was taking during the period she executed the challenged will. 
Notably, this went beyond simply reciting the medications that Mrs.
Ralph had been prescribed.  Rather, Dr. Campbell stated that he
confirmed at an appointment eight days before Mrs. Ralph executed the
challenged will, and again at an appointment nine days after Mrs. Ralph
executed that will, that she was actually taking those medications.  Dr.
Campbell said that Mrs. Ralph expressly acknowledged at the second
appointment that she was taking all of her medications, and he concluded
that, "[b]ased on my numerous examinations of [Mrs. Ralph] and my
discussions with her, I am confident she used these medications as
prescribed for the entire period they were prescribed."  Dr. Campbell's
testimony constitutes substantial evidence from which a fair-minded
22
1200141
person could reasonably conclude that Mrs. Ralph was under the influence
of these medications at the time she executed the challenged will.  Cf.
Maxwell, 974 So. 2d at 287 (noting that while the evidence indicated that
the decedent took various medications in the later years of his life, there
was no evidence indicating what medications he "had taken on the date
or near the time he revoked his will").
Second, Dr. Campbell testified about the side effects of the
medications that Mrs. Ralph was taking.   Importantly, this testimony
was not merely a generic summation of the possible side effects a
medication might have, as can be found on the warning labels that
accompany all prescription medications.  Rather, Dr. Campbell specifically
discussed the side effects that Mrs. Ralph experienced as a result of taking
those medications.  For example, with regard to Xanax, Dr. Campbell
explained that it could impair "cognitive functioning and memory
retention."  He then went on to state that Mrs. Ralph "experienced mental
impairment while taking Xanax" and that they even discussed this side
effect but "she elected to continue [its use] as the benefits of the drug on
her emotional state and mental health were significant."  
23
1200141
Finally, Dr. Campbell testified that  several of the medications that
Mrs. Ralph was taking could cause confusion and mental impairment on
their own and that their combined use could compound those side effects. 
Crucially, he stated that he had observed those side effects in Mrs. Ralph
"on several occasions" and that during their appointments he was aware
"that her mental faculties were severely impaired."  This testimony
indicating how the medications Mrs. Ralph took actually affected her
mental acuity -- not just how those medications might hypothetically
affect anyone who takes them -- would permit a fact-finder to conclude
that the medications were having that effect on Mrs. Ralph when she
executed the challenged will.  
In contrast, the evidence presented in Taylor was lacking.  While the
hospitalized testator's medical records indicated that he was taking
narcotic pain medication when he executed his will, ___ So. 3d at ___,
there was no evidence showing how the medicine actually affected him. 
The Court simply reasoned that "[t]he use of narcotic pain medications
might have influenced [the testator's] mental state." ___ So. 3d at ___
(emphasis added).  I declined to join that analysis because, while the
24
1200141
plaintiff had produced warning labels for the testator's medications that
indicated they "may impair" the mental abilities of individuals who take
them, there was no evidence that the testator "was in fact affected in that
manner."  Taylor, ___ So. 3d at ___ (Mitchell, J., concurring in the result). 
Accordingly, I concluded, it would be improper to speculate that he had. 
Id.; see also Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869, 876 (7th Cir. 2010)
(explaining that it would "be speculation to assume that [the appellant]
automatically suffers from [common] side effects" of the prescription
medication he had been taking); Maxwell, 974 So. 2d at 287 (holding that
a will contestant had failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue
of material fact about the testator's capacity because the contestant had
produced no evidence indicating that the testator's medications had
"affected his mental acuity in any way").
In my view, Taylor is an outlier and the majority opinion today
accurately demonstrates the type of evidence that is required to establish
that a testator lacked capacity because of the medication he or she was
taking.  Future litigants attempting to make such a showing should
consider the majority opinion in this case when compiling their evidence
25
1200141
and ensure that they put forth evidence demonstrating not merely that
the testator has taken medication that has the potential to affect his or
her mental capacity, but that the medication in fact did so.
26