Abstract
As the population of the USA ages, mental health practitioners are increasingly called upon to assess civil capacities. This paper provides information regarding the assessment of testamentary capacity and the related issue of undue influence. A brief review of the legal standards that inform these types of assessments is provided, including a discussion of the Goodfellow legal criteria and the relationship between delusional thinking and validity of will or trust. This paper reviews methods for performing these types of assessments with both living and deceased testators, including a general overview of methodology, suggestions for test choice and use, and the expert’s role in probate court. The overuse of inappropriate psychometric instruments is also discussed. Common problems with assessments and testimony in this area of practice, such as the conflation of diagnosis and functional capacity, and misunderstanding of the applicable legal standards, are reviewed. This paper concludes by suggesting that the courts and mental health professionals may be working at cross purposes in this area of practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ABA/APA Assessment of capacity in older adults project working group, American Bar Association. Commission on Law and Aging, & American Psychological Association. (2008). Assessment of older adults with diminished capacity: a handbook for psychologists. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging: American Psychological Association.
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (Amended February 20, 2010). American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073.
Banks v. Goodfellow (1870), L.R. 5 Q.B. 549 (Eng. Q.B.).
Bartis v. Bartis 107 N.H. 34 (1966)
Demakis, G. J. (Ed.). (2012). Civil capacities in clinical neuropsychology: Research findings and practical applications. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Drogin, E. Y., & Barrett, C. L. (2015). Evaluation for guardianship. In Forensic Assessments in Criminal and Civil Law (pp. 135–147).
Estate of Finkler, 1935S. F. No. 14681. In Bank. May 3, 1935.
Frolik, L., & Radford, S. (2006). Sufficient' capacity: the contrasting capacity requirements for different documents. 2 NAECA Journal, 303, 304.
Greenberg, S. A., Shuman, D. W., & Meyer, R. G. (2004). Unmasking forensic diagnosis. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27(1), 1–15.
Guadnola, J. P. (1930). Insane delusions--phenomena affecting testamentary capacity in the execution of wills. Notre Dame Law Review, 5(7), 393–399.
Gutheil, T. G. (2007). Common pitfalls in the evaluation of testamentary capacity. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35(4), 514–517.
Markson, L., Kern, D., Annas, G., & Glantz, L. (1994). Physician assessment of patient competence. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 42(October), 1074–1080.
Mart, E. (2013). Problems in the assessment of testamentary capacity. The Senior Lawyer, 2(5), 24–29.
Mart, E. G., & Alban, A. D. (2011). The practical assessment of testamentary capacity and undue influence in the elderly. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
Nasser, H. E. (2019). The graying of America: more older adults than kids by 2035. Retrieved May 18, 2019, from https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/03/graying-america.html
Peisah, C., Finkel, S., Shulman, K., Melding, P., Luxenberg, J., Heinik, J., et al. (2009). The wills of older people: risk factors for undue influence. International Psychogeriatrics, 21(01).
Plotkin, D. A., Spar, J. E., & Horwitz, H. L. (2016). Assessing undue influence. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 44(3), 344.
Shuman, D. W. (1995). Persistent reexperiences in psychiatry and law: Current and future trends in Post-traumatic Stress Disorder litigation. In R. I. Simon (Ed.), Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in litigation: Guidelines for forensic assessment (pp. 1-11). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Shulman, K. I., Cohen, C. A., & Hull, I. (2005). Psychiatric issues in retrospective challenges of testamentary capacity. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.1257.
Shulman, K. I., & Feinstein, A. (2003). Quick cognitive screening for clinicians: Mini mental, clock drawing and other brief tests. London: Martin Dunitz.
Shulman, K. I., Herrmann, N., Brodaty, H., Chiu, H., Lawlor, B., Ritchie, K., & Scanlan, J. M. (2006). IPA survey of brief cognitive screening instruments. International Psychogeriatrics, 18(2), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610205002693.
Shulman, K. I., Peisah, C., Jacoby, R., Heinik, J., & Finkel, S. (2009). Contemporaneous assessment of testamentary capacity. International Psychogeriatrics, 21(03), 433. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610209008874.
Spar, J. E., & Garb, A. S. (1992). Assessing competency to make a will. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 169–174.
Tunzi, M. (2001). Can the patient decide? Evaluating patient capacity in practice. American Family Physician, 64(2), 299–306.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mart, E.G. Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence: Assessments and Problematic Techniques. Psychol. Inj. and Law 13, 1–10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09365-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09365-7