Nodvin v. Arogeti, Ex'r

No issue remained regarding whether the testator suffered from monomania at the time he made his will since some evidence supported his conclusions regarding the allegedly hostile motives of the caveators.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The appellants, Stephen and Neal Nodvin, filed a caveat to the probate of their father’s will on the ground that the will was the product of their father’s monomania. The probate court, however, granted summary judgment to the appellee, James Arogeti, the executor of the will. The appellants now appeal, contending that there were issues of fact regarding monomania that should have been submitted to a jury and that the probate court erred in ruling that a recording of their father’s voice was inadmissible. For the following reasons, we find no merit to these contentions, and affirm the probate court’s judgment. 1. “Monomania is a mental disease which leaves the sufferer sane generally but insane on a particular subject or class of subjects.”1 For a will to be set aside based on monomania, the caveator must show that the testator suffered from monomania at the time he made his will, and that his will resulted from or was connected with the monomania.2 In Boney , we outlined the elements necessary to show that someone is suffering from monomania.

“The person so affected is subject to hallucinations and delusions, and is impressed with the reality of events which have never occurred and things which do not exist, and his actions are more or less in conformity with his belief in these particulars . . . . It is not every delusion which will deprive one of testamentary capacity. It must be an insane delusion. A definition of such a delusion which has been approved by this court is that it exists wherever a person conceives something extravagant to exist which has no existence whatever, and he is incapable of being permanently reasoned out of that conception. Cit. The subject-matter of the insane delusion must have no foundation in fact, and must spring from a diseased condition of mind. . . .”3

Nodvin v. Arogeti, Ex'r

No issue remained regarding whether the testator suffered from monomania at the time he made his will since some evidence supported his conclusions regarding the allegedly hostile motives of the caveators.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report