THE ASSESSMENT OF TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY AND UNDUE INFLUENCE: COMMON FALLACIES AND REMEDIATION STRATEGIES

Abstract

The assessment of testamentary capacity and undue influence occupies a critical position at the intersection of law, psychiatry, psychology, and ethics. Disputes concerning the validity of wills frequently hinge upon whether the testator possessed the requisite mental capacity at the time of execution and whether the testamentary act was the product of free will. Despite long-standing legal principles and clinical guidelines, assessments remain vulnerable to conceptual misunderstandings, methodological errors, and hindsight bias. This article examines the legal and psychological foundations of testamentary capacity and undue influence, identifies common fallacies encountered in forensic evaluations, and proposes remediation strategies aimed at improving reliability, transparency, and fairness. By integrating doctrinal legal analysis with contemporary forensic assessment practices, this paper seeks to enhance the quality of expert opinions and judicial decision-making in testamentary disputes.