Judgment No. 26519 of 2024: Analysis of the Capacity to Understand and Will in Wills

The recent judgment No. 26519 of the Supreme Court, pronounced on February 22, 2024, offers an important reflection on the validity of wills in relation to the capacity to understand and will of the testator. This specific case involved a dispute over the legitimacy of a holographic will drafted by A.A. in the context of a serious illness and heavy pharmacological treatment. The Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal of Venice, highlighting that the evidence of incapacity was deemed insufficient.

Case Context

The controversy arose after the death of A.A., who had drafted a will in 2006. The deceased's sisters, C.C. and D.D., contested the validity of this will, arguing that A.A. was incapable of understanding and willing at the time of its drafting. The Court of Appeal had initially dismissed these claims, stating that absolute incapacity of A.A. at the time of drafting the will had not been demonstrated, but only a temporary alteration of mental faculties.

Evaluation of Evidence and Capacity to Understand

The Supreme Court reiterated that it is up to the challenger of the will to prove the incapacity of the testator.

The ruling of the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence. The Court of Appeal, in confirming the first instance decision, considered that A.A.'s health conditions were not such as to invalidate his capacity to draft a will. Among the points considered, it was emphasized that, although A.A. was suffering from a serious illness, sufficient evidence of total incapacity at the time of drafting the will had not been provided.

• Assessment of medical documentation: experts confirmed that treatment with morphine did not necessarily lead to addiction that compromised the capacity to understand and will.
• Comparison between the contested will and a previous draft, highlighting that the differences were justified and did not indicate manipulation of intent.
• The testimony of those who assisted A.A. during his illness did not support the hypothesis of conditioning of his will.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 26519 of 2024 represents an important ruling in the field of succession and wills, emphasizing the need for concrete and documented evidence to demonstrate the incapacity to understand and will of the testator. It reaffirms that, in the absence of clear evidence, the testamentary will must be respected; this is fundamental to ensuring the stability and certainty of property successions. Issues related to the capacity to understand and will remain complex and require careful analysis on a case-by-case basis.