Also known as: natural object of her bounty · natural objects of his bounty · natural objects of their bounty · natural objects of bounty
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The persons whom a testator would naturally be expected to remember and provide for when disposing of property by will. The phrase identifies close family members such as spouses, children, and parents whose relationship to the testator makes them the ordinary objects of testamentary bounty.
Naveen Nanda executes a will while in the hospital. He correctly names his two adult children and his spouse as the people he intends to benefit and explains why he is leaving nothing to a distant cousin. The drafting attorney records that Naveen understands who his natural objects of bounty are and how he wishes to distribute his estate. The will is therefore upheld against a capacity challenge.
Nikhil Narayan signs a new will that leaves his entire estate to a neighbor. Medical records show he repeatedly misidentified his only daughter as a former business associate and could not recall her name during the drafting meeting. Because he did not know the natural objects of his bounty, the court finds he lacked testamentary capacity and denies probate.
Spicer Breeden died in his home on March 19, 1996, from a self-inflicted gunshot wound two days after he was involved in a highly publicized hit-and-run accident that killed the driver of the other vehicle. Upon entering the decedent’s home following his suicide, the Denver police discovered on his desk a handwritten document that read: “I want everything I have to go to Sydney Stone— ‘houses,’ ‘jewelwry,’ [sic] stocks[,] bonds, cloths [sic]. P.S. I was Not Driving the Vehical— [sic].” At the bottom of the handwritten document, the decedent printed, “SPICER H. BREEDEN” and signed beneath his printed name. Sydney Stone offered the handwritten document for probate as the holographic will of the decedent. The decedent had previously executed a formal will in 1991 and a holographic codicil leaving his estate to persons other than Respondent. Several individuals filed objections to the holographic will, including Holly Breeden Connell and Vic E. Breeden, who alleged lack of testamentary capacity. On September 3-6, 1996, a hearing was held on the petition for formal probate. Both parties presented evidence in the form of testimony of factual and expert witnesses, handwriting samples, and other documents. The probate court found that the decedent used cocaine and alcohol for several years prior to his death, based on the testimony of his friends Jennifer Chelwick and Michael Crow. Relying on the autopsy report and testimony from the decedent’s sister, the court found that the decedent used alcohol and cocaine on the evening of March 17 and between March 17 and 19. Based on the testimony of several of the decedent’s friends, the court found that the decedent’s moods were alternately euphoric, fearful, and depressed, and that he was excessively worried about threats against himself and his dog from government agents, friends, and others. In addition, the probate court considered the testimony of expert witnesses, including two forensic toxicologists, two forensic psychiatrists, a forensic document examiner, and two handwriting experts. Friends Ken McSpadden and Rick Eagan testified that in the two weeks prior to his death the decedent had indicated to each of them in separate conversations that he did not intend to leave his estate to his family. On September 3, 1996, the first day of the probate hearing, Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss Breeden Sr. and Connell as parties to the suit. Petitioners appealed to the court of appeals after the probate court admitted the will to probate on September 26, 1996. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseThe testator must know in a general way who her close family members are and how she wishes to dispose of her property among them. Occasional memory lapses do not automatically defeat capacity if the testator can still identify those relatives and form an orderly plan at the time of execution.
No. A testator may lawfully choose to disinherit a close relative. The phrase identifies the persons the testator would ordinarily remember. It does not create a legal requirement that any of them must receive a gift.
A state where the testator, the natural objects of bounty, and the charity are all domiciled may have a stronger interest in applying its own rule limiting charitable bequests than the state where the land is located. The purpose of the rule and the parties' connections determine which state's law governs.
…he signed his will to understand the ordinary affairs of life, the value and extent of his property, the persons who were the natural objects of his bounty, and that he was able to intelligently weigh and appreciate his natural obligation to them, will you follow such an instruction? If the prospective juror answers ‘no,’ that he would…