Romano v Romano

This case concerned an appeal from a primary judge's decision regarding the admission of a document to probate. The appellant, who sought to have the document admitted, argued that the primary judge erred in finding that testamentary capacity had not been proven. The respondents opposed the admission of the document to probate.

The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the primary judge was correct in holding that the onus of proving testamentary capacity had not been discharged by the appellant, and consequently, whether the document was capable of having testamentary effect. The court considered the deceased's comprehension of claims upon him, including those of his grandchildren, and the circumstances surrounding the exclusion of these beneficiaries.

The court reasoned that the primary judge had ample basis to conclude that the evidentiary onus had shifted to the appellant to prove testamentary capacity. This conclusion was informed by evidence of the deceased's medical condition, including a stroke and subsequent confusion, the appellant's own assessment of the deceased's state, an assault incident, and a strong medical assessment of the deceased's lack of competence and testamentary capacity shortly after transactions where he appeared to understand his actions. Weighing all these factors, the court found no error in the primary judge's determination that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity at the time the document was executed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court further ordered that the appellant was not to be indemnified from the estate for his own costs of the appeal or for the costs of the respondents.