Opinion ID: 885381
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Objects of Her Bounty

Text: ¶ 43 The third element of testamentary capacity is that the testator was aware of the objects of her bounty. This is the primary basis for Putman's challenge to Prescott's competency and is in turn based largely on her statement to her attorney, Moore, six years after execution of the will, that no one follows me in this line of Prescott. ¶ 44 Putman's expert, Dr. Seitz, testified as follows: Q. When do you say she couldn't make a will? A. I would have been concerned about her making a will certainly around the time of the stroke and thereafter. Q. The stroke being in 1981? A. 1981. Q. So anytime after 1981, you would have been concerned about her testamentary capacity? A. That's right. Now, I do have to point out that she ebbed and flowed in these abilities. It's not like she was 24 hours a day, seven days a week, unable to make some of these decisions, but what I am saying is that her cognitive abilities were impaired. Q. So it was possible, in your view, after the stroke in 1981 on a particular day, that she could have known who her heirs were? A. There's a possibility of that. ¶ 45 The problem with Seitz's testimony is that the object of her bounty when she executed her will in 1985 was the same she had indicated it would be in her letter to Leon Johnson nearly 21 years earlier, before the stroke which he felt incapacitated her. Prescott was a graduate of the Montana State College, had donated and contributed to both institutions in the past, and had expressed her future intent to donate the proceeds from the sale of her ranch to the foundation in her 1964 letter to the president of the college 21 years prior to the execution of her will which specifically devised the proceeds from the sale of her ranch to the foundation. On the other hand, she had no contact of any kind with Putman after 1954, nor did Putman attempt to establish contact with her at any time during the remaining 42 years of her life. ¶ 46 Therefore, we conclude that Putman has failed to present any credible evidence that Prescott was unaware of the objects of her bounty. ¶ 47 Additionally, we note that in Estate of West (1994), 269 Mont. 83, 95, 887 P.2d 222, 229, we stated that the mere fact that a conservator has been appointed does not mean that the protected person lacks the capacity to make a will. Therefore, the fact that Prescott had agreed to the appointment of a conservator, has no bearing on the issue of her testamentary capacity. ¶ 48 Accordingly, we conclude that the undisputed facts prove that Prescott possessed the requisite testamentary capacity on April 1, 1985, the day she executed her will. Therefore, we conclude that the District Court did not err when it dismissed Putman's challenge to the will on the basis that Prescott lacked testamentary capacity. ¶ 49 For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. J.A. TURNAGE, C.J., and WILLIAM E. HUNT, Sr., W. WILLIAM LEAPHART and JIM REGNIER, JJ., concur.