In re Honigman
168 N.E.2d 676 (N.Y. 1960)


Facts: Prior to his death, the decedent, Frank Honigman, told friends and strangers alike that he believed his wife was unfaithful. This suspicion became an obsession, although he was normal and rational in other respects. The decedent, a man of 70 who had undergone a number of operations, once commented that he was sick in the head and that he knew something was wrong with him. The decedent instructed his attorney to prepare a will cutting off his wife from any of his estate, leaving her life use of her minimum statutory share, with directions to pay the principal upon her death to his surviving brothers or sisters and to the descendants of any predeceased brother or sister, per stirpes. At the trial, the proponents of the will adduced evidence which, they argued, showed a reasonable basis for the decedent's belief. This included an anniversary card sent by a Mr. Krause to the decedent's wife, a letter, evidence that whenever the phone rang the decedent's wife would answer it, and evidence that Mr. Krause came over to the decedent's house one night while the decedent was out. When the will was offered for probate, the decedent's widow (P) filed objections. A trial was conducted on the issue of whether the deceased was of sound mind and memory at the time he signed the will. The jury answered in the negative. The appellate court reversed. This appeal followed.

Issue: If a person believes facts that are against all evidence and probability and conducts himself, however logically, upon the assumption of their existence in making his will, does he suffer from an insane delusion so as to defeat testamentary capacity?

Holding: Yes. The Court of Appeals, Dye, J., held that question whether deceased had been insane was for jury, that widow's testimony concerning personal transaction or communication between herself and deceased should have been excluded and that even though proponents failed to object to testimony at earliest opportunity they did not irrevocably waive their right to protest.
Rule: is that if a person persistently believes supposed facts that have no real existence except in his perverted imagination and against all evidence and probability, and conducts himself, however logically, upon the assumption of their existence, he is, so far as they are concerned, under a morbid delusion. Such a person is essentially mad or insane on those subjects.

Analysis: Here, the issue of the decedent's sanity was an issue for the jury to resolve. There was sufficient evidence to justify placing this issue before the jury: the decedent's repeated suspicions of P's unfaithfulness; his belief of P's misbehaving by hiding male callers under her bed and by hauling men from the street up to her bedroom by the use of sheets; and so forth. The proponents argue that even if the decedent was laboring under a delusion, other reasons support the validity of the will. We disagree. A will is invalid if its dispository provisions might have been caused or affected by the delusion. The Dead Man's Statute which excludes the testimony of a witness concerning a personal communication between the witness and the deceased was misconstrued to permit the testimony of P when an objection to her testimony had been properly raised.