Opinion ID: 2561911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Were the district court's factual findings clearly erroneous?

Text: [¶ 18] The appellant's burden at trial was to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that at the time he entered into the transactions in question, he was not mentally competent to do so. The district court found that he failed to satisfy that burden. On appeal, the appellant must demonstrate that the district court's findings are unsupported by the record. To that end, the appellant points to a number of areas where he contends that the evidence did not support the district court's decision. [¶ 19] First, the appellant asserts that the only evidence the appellees presented regarding the appellant's state of mind when he made the conveyances was the testimony of his son William, who testified that the appellant was doing very well. The appellant next claims that the appellees presented no medical evidence bearing on the question of the appellant's competence. Finally, the appellant points to the testimony of his expert, who expressed the opinion that the appellant suffered severe cognitive impairment from November 21, 2004 to January 7, 2005, and it was highly unlikely the appellant could form the mental capacity necessary to convey property. [¶ 20] Our review of the record reveals that the evidence was more than sufficient to support the district court's decision. While the appellant claims that the appellees presented inadequate evidence to demonstrate he was mentally competent, we find the opposite to be true. The appellant, who had the burden, presented no compelling evidence demonstrating that he lacked capacity. The only evidence he provided bearing on the relevant time frame (when the documents were executed) was his own testimony that he did not remember executing any of the documents and the testimony of his daughter, Debra. The appellant's testimony is of very little, if any, value as it gives no insight into his state of mind when the documents were executed. He simply says he does not remember. Although Debra insists that the appellant was not mentally competent when he executed the documents, her testimony is contradictory and, like the testimony of the other sibling, appears to have been largely disregarded by the district court. [2] Although Debra was present when a number of the transactions occurred, she raised no concerns regarding the appellant's mental competence or understanding. See generally Cundick, 383 F.2d at 159 (court upheld validity of contract where, although wife later claimed her husband was mentally incapable of entering into the transactions, she was present when the contracts were executed and never objected). Also, Debra testified at trial that she agreed that from the time he was admitted to the hospice, the appellant was aware of people, read newspapers, watched television, carried on conversations and was generally oriented to person, place and time. The appellant's granddaughter, April Bender, also testified for the appellant. She said that she visited the appellant often and [h]e was with it sometimes and other times he wasn't. However, Ms. Bender was not present when any of the documents were executed and thus her testimony is also of limited significance. [¶ 21] In contrast, the appellees presented the testimony of witnesses who were actually present and observed the appellant when the documents were executed. In addition to the testimony of his children who were present and testified that the appellant was of sound mind, the appellees called the individuals who notarized the documents, Karen Harrison and Tera Gillett. Ms. Harrison, an employee at the hospice, notarized the January 7 deeds. Ms. Gillett, a social worker at the hospice, notarized the December 27 bill of sale. While neither specifically recalled notarizing the documents, they verified their signatures and testified that before notarizing any document they would ask questions to verify that the person signing was aware of what he was signing and understood what it meant. [¶ 22] The medical records offered by the appellees also provide compelling evidence that the appellant was mentally competent at the time he entered into the transactions. The nursing flow sheets indicate that the appellant was alert and oriented to person, time and place on the days in question. While the appellant acknowledges these records, he claims that the charting defies common sense in view of the nature and extent of Appellant's illness, casts doubt on the reliability of the record. This claim is presumably based largely on the opinion of the appellant's expert witness, whose opinion we will now examine. [¶ 23] The appellant's expert, Bruce Kahn, M.D., J.D., was not the appellant's treating physician but was hired by the appellant to give an opinion on the matter. Dr. Kahn testified that as a result of a severe hypoxic episode which resulted in brain damage and delirium, the appellant did not have the requisite mental capacity to execute the documents. With regard to Dr. Kahn's opinion, the district court found as follows: However, Dr. Kahn's testimony and his review was based upon facts that, frankly, are not supported in the record. He testified as to hypoxic events that are not documented. And I went through carefully the medical records and the nurse progress notes to note the oxygenthe O2 levels at various timesand that was an issue that was addressed by counsel during the testimony of [the appellant's treating physician], as well as Dr. Kahnand there are no indications of any significant hypoxic events that would have resulted in incapacitation that would have prevented Mr. Street from being competent on the dates in question. We have said: The trier of fact must decide what weight is to be given to expert testimony, and it still remains the duty of the trier of the factual issues, whether jury or judge, to determine the credibility of all witnesses, including expert witnesses, and to evaluate the testimony of each in reaching its verdict. Reed v. Hunter, 663 P.2d 513, 518 (Wyo. 1983). Further, [t]he trial judge who heard and saw the witnesses and felt the pulse beat of the lawsuit is, to be sure, the first and best judge of the weight and value to be given to all of the evidence, both expert and non-expert. Cundick, 383 F.2d at 162. [¶ 24] Our review of the medical records reveals no evidence of the severe hypoxic events described by Dr. Kahn during the relevant time periods. Even Dr. Kahn acknowledged a lack of evidence in the medical records: Q. Okay. Did you see reference in the medical records that you reviewed to the extent or severity of [the appellant's] hypoxemia? A. You know, I scoured the records very thoroughly and could not see a blood gas where his oxygen level would have been consistent with that diagnosis. The testimony and opinion of Dr. Kahn, upon which the appellant relies almost exclusively, fell short of satisfying his burden at trial to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he was mentally incompetent to enter into the transactions. Likewise, when Dr. Kahn's opinion is viewed in conjunction with all of the evidence in the record on appeal, we cannot say with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.