The Oklahoma Bar Journal November 2024

legally capable of overbearing the will maker’s free agency.” But did that occur in this case? The opin ion leaves room for skepticism. Ms. Maheras, age 96, left the bulk of her estate to her church, leaving little to her nephew, her sole heir. The opinion says nothing about the relationship between aunt and nephew. In the 1970s, Ms. Maheras battled alcoholism. The opinion says nothing further about her physical or mental health when she executed the will. In the early 80s, she became friends with the Rev. William Cook. Ultimately, she joined his church. In the words of the court, “By 1984 all of Maheras’ friends were First Baptist church members.” The Rev. Cook arranged for several church mem bers to regularly assist Ms. Maheras by cleaning her house. In 1983, Ms. Maheras attended some estate planning programs at the church. She missed the final session. The Rev. Cook brought her the booklet from that event. He then spent several hours “assisting Ms. Maheras in cataloging her assets.” He also arranged for an attorney church member to draft the will. Both witnesses were also church members. The trial court found that Ms. Maheras had capac ity, and she “understood the provi sions of the will, appeared normal, and was aware of the nephew’s existence.” The trial court also found the witnesses disinterested. The Supreme Court, however, found Ms. Maheras’ “testamentary capacity to be a moot issue.” Does Maheras represent a simple case of an appellate court affirming a trial court opinion not clearly at odds with the evidence? Or does it show how readily a case may fall prey to sanist bias? Here we have a testatrix with capacity,

influence, duress or other parens patriae notions. The latter devolve into pretextual justifications for sanist outcomes. In this manner, sanism appears remarkably like the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, so-called because the protagonist shoots holes in the side of a barn and then paints targets around the bullet holes. It goes hand in hand with the related fallacy of confir mation bias – concluding first then reasoning afterward to support it. In our context, the resort to sanism may be both benign and uncon scious, but that doesn’t make it any less fallacious. Oklahoma law does not pro vide for a “right to inherit” out side intestacy except in cases of spousal election and pretermitted heir statutes. In fact, many people seek estate planning to avoid the statutory regime. No legal require ment forbids a will containing an idiosyncratic, whimsical or objectively illogical disposition. In other respects, however, the law seeks orthodoxy and normalcy, for example, focusing on relatives and degrees of kindred. 30 In addition, “testators are presumed to intend to provide for the natural objects of their bounty.” 31 The further removed from the family-oriented norm, the more likely a successful challenge. For example, in Morris v. West’s Estate , 32 the testator left his entire estate to his ex-son-in-law to the exclusion of his daughter and grandchild. The court vacated the will on the basis that the witnesses were in different rooms when the testator brought his signed will to them for their signatures. 33 Can It Happen in Oklahoma? In re Maheras 34 holds, “A person who is not a beneficiary under a will’s terms may be regarded as

question: Would the decisions be the same if the testators or pro posed wards were in their 40s? SANISM’S SIGNIFICANCE IN THE ESTATE PLANNING CONTEXT One can readily see that con cerns for the influences of sanism readily lend themselves to certain fields of mental health law, such as civil commitments, guardianships and competency to stand trial in criminal cases. However, “the validity of an analysis extending the theoretical construct of sanism from the areas of civil commit ment and criminal law, in which it was developed, to the law of wills, is not self-evident.” 26 It is import ant not to lose sight of the distinc tion between estate planning and civil commitment and criminal laws. In the latter, the goal is to protect the subject of the suit or – in the criminal field – to deter mine whether, and to what extent, a person may be held culpable for their acts. In contrast, “the require ment of testamentary capacity ... serves to preclude certain individ uals from exercising a choice that those deemed to possess the requi site capacity may and do enjoy, on the grounds that these individuals would not have chosen as they did if they possessed the necessary level of understanding.” 27 Sanism mostly affects the “out lier” will – one that deviates from the expected societal norm and/or the atypical client holding some what eccentric or whimsical inten tions. 28 Under sanist reasoning, the primacy of “testator’s intent” is subordinated to secondary consid eration, such as “natural objects of a testator’s bounty and anchored to legitimacy by resort to formal isms” 29 or concepts such as undue

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

36 | NOVEMBER 2024

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL