Evidence of Subsequent Capacity

Can evidence of the decedent’s capacity after the time of making the will be admitted to prove capacity at the time of making the will?

In (In re Bright’s Estate) Willard v. Bright (Sp. Ct. Mt. 1931) 89 Mont. 394; 300 P. 229, the court found that such evidence was "clearly admissible".

In April 1928, the decedent made out a will. In November 1928, she suffered a broken hip. At that time, Frances Goozee attended to the decedent until her death in February 1929. Certain putative heirs of the decedent were unhappy with the will and argued that the decedent was incompetent at the time she executed the will in April 1928.

The proponents of the will countered with Ms. Goozee, who testified that during the final four months of her life, the decedent was competent.

The trial court found the decedent competent and the contestants appealed, in part arguing that the evidence from Ms. Goozee was inadmissible because it was after the fact. The Supreme Court for Montana found the evidence was "clearly admissible":

"The evidence was offered in rebuttal of numerous declarations made by witnesses in support of contestants' allegation, denied by contestants, that for 2 ½ years or more, prior to her death, Mrs. Bright was ‘mentally unable to understand or transact her ordinary business affairs,’ and in that condition was unduly influenced by these contestees, and further numerous statements that during all of that period she was mentally incompetent to make a will. The testimony was clearly admissible." Id., at p. 397.

Point of application: If the nature of incompetency was an alleged degenerative condition, then proof that the decedent was competent after the time in question would be inconsistent with the alleged degenerative condition. Therefore, the evidence would be admissible. Are there circumstances in which the (alleged) incompetency could be ameliorated? Would the subsequent evidence be admissible in those cases? And, if so, to what purpose?