Lane v Li delves into the deeply contentious and emotionally charged dispute over the validity of a will made in the final weeks of the deceased, Frank Lane’s, life. At the heart of the matter lies a dramatic departure from the deceased’s will made in 2010, to a new will drafted on 8 April 2023 that favoured a close friend, Xinfeng (Lily) Li, the first respondent, with a significant and unexplained bequest and altered property distributions.
Questions of undue influence and testamentary capacity amidst the deceased’s declining health and erratic behaviour during his hospital stay placed the will-making process of the 2023 will under intense scrutiny. This case sheds light on the complexities of contested wills, revealing the intersection of family tensions, financial stakes, ethical, and capacity questions surrounding the will-making process.
We successfully represented our client in the High Court and was able to achieve a highly favourable outcome. Probate was granted to the earlier 2010 will instead of the 2023 will due to overwhelming evidence of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity.
Background
The deceased’s earlier will, dated 14 December 2010, divided his estate equally among five of his six children. However, the new 2023 will made significant departures, including a $500,000 bequest to the first respondent and various property distributions that excluded three of his children entirely. Concerns were raised regarding the deceased’s testamentary capacity and potential undue influence in the creation of the 2023 will. The entire will-making and signing of the 2023 will was captured in four separate video recordings, showing in extreme detail the extent of the undue influence placed on the deceased, as well as his lack of testamentary capacity.
The applicant, James Lane – our client, brought an application to the Court seeking probate of both wills in the alternative and gave evidence regarding the undue influence placed on the deceased during the making of the 2023 will and the deceased’s lack of testamentary capacity.
The first respondent and her son, Dylan Smith (with the first respondent acting as his litigation guardian), vigorously opposed the above application. They presented evidence that in fact, the deceased did have testamentary capacity and was not subject to undue influence.
Key Issues
The Court, for the first time in New Zealand legal history, had the benefit of video evidence documenting the entire will-making process. The entire process was done in 30 minutes, from drafting to witnessing and signing.
The applicant, represented by Thomas Bloy and Tamina Cunningham-Adams of Evolution Lawyers, raised three main issues. These issues were:
- Testamentary Capacity: The deceased had undergone surgery shortly before making the 2023 will and was experiencing severe health issues, including confusion and delirium. Medical notes and witness evidence described him as frequently disoriented and agitated during his hospital stay. Two medical experts provided conflicting opinions about his mental state at the time the will was executed. Dr Samantha Read-Smith concluded that the deceased lacked capacity due to ongoing delirium based on her capacity assessment during the deceased’s hospital stay and hospital notes, while Dr Nicholas Peter Cooper believed the deceased was competent, relying primarily on video evidence of the 2023 will’s drafting.
- Undue Influence: The deceased was unduly influenced by those present during the drafting of the 2023 will, including the beneficiaries and Jinyue (Paul) Young, the “lawyer” who drafted the will. Evidence highlighted the first respondent’s close involvement in securing Paul to draft the 2023 will. Undue influence was also attributed to Paul, who drafted the will under questionable circumstances. Paul had limited knowledge of the deceased’s family, assets, and prior wishes. Paul also took direct instructions from the beneficiaries present in the room on what to include in the will. Notably, Paul had a history of disciplinary actions and a controversial legal background, receiving two suspensions throughout the span of his short legal career.
- Discrepancies in Testamentary Intentions: A comparison of the 2010 will, a handwritten note from 4 April 2023, and the 2023 will revealed significant and unexplained differences. These included changes to beneficiaries and distributions of the estate, new provisions benefiting the first respondent and her son, and an unclear clause suggesting that the first respondent’s bequest could not be shared with her husband—a change that she admitted to altering post-signing.
Court’s Findings
Justice Churchman analysed extensive evidence, including medical records, video recordings, and witness testimony, to determine whether the deceased possessed the mental capacity to create a valid will and whether undue influence played a role in its making.
It was found that the above evidence pointed towards a lack of testamentary capacity. Dr Read-Smith’s evidence that the deceased’s lacked testamentary capacity due to ongoing delirium and her own capacity assessment. Her evidence was preferred over Dr Cooper’s.
During cross-examination, Dr Cooper was found to have ignored key hospital notes showing the deceased’s state of mind and behaviour for no apparent reason and had acted as an advocate for the first respondent rather than as an expert witness. Furthermore, there was no obvious rationale for the changes between the 2010 will and 2023 will.
Undue influence was also established due to the conduct of the first respondent, Paul, and the beneficiaries of the 2023 will. Justice Churchman found that:
- Paul’s drafting and legal skills were grossly inadequate. These inadequacies included clauses of the 2023 being impossible to execute, Paul’s explanations of said clauses incomprehensible, and that he appeared to be acting for the beneficiaries instead of the deceased;
- the first respondent was devious and manipulative in the making of the 2023 will based on undisputed evidence from the deceased’s family; and
- the video evidence demonstrating the active involvement of the beneficiaries of the 2023 will during the will-making process amounted to undue influence. The mere presence of beneficiaries during the will-making process can raise a concern. However, the facts here go well above and beyond.
Due to the above evidence, Justice Churchman ruled that the 2023 will was invalid. Probate was granted to the earlier 2010 will instead of the 2023 will.
Conclusion
The judgment underscores the complexities of contested wills involving claims of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, particularly when family dynamics and significant financial interests are at stake. Justice Churchman addressed the legal principles for assessing testamentary capacity, the reliability of medical evidence, and the credibility of those involved in drafting and executing the will.
Our firm successfully advocated for our client, ensuring that he received a positive outcome in what is a historic case surrounding the legal principles regarding testamentary capacity and undue influence.