By Kent Berk on August 3rd, 2026 in ARIZONA, BLOG, Estate Litigation, Estate Planning, PROBATE LITIGATION
Testamentary capacity in Arizona is judged by the testator’s state of mind at one specific moment: the moment of signing. But what happens when the person who signed it had already been diagnosed with moderate dementia more than a year earlier? Can a court look at how someone was declining in the months before and after they signed, or is it limited to what happened precisely on signing day itself?
In a published opinion issued on July 29, 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals answered that question and, in the process, reversed a trial court that had admitted a contested will to probate. Samaras v. Samaras is an important read for anyone involved in estate planning for aging clients, and for families weighing whether to challenge or defend a will.
The family dispute
Byron Samaras had two children, Christina and Nicholas (“Nico”). In 2017, Byron created a family living trust that named both children as equal beneficiaries. Alongside the trust, he signed a “pour-over” will naming Christina as personal representative and directing that the residue of his estate flow into the trust at his death. Under that 2017 plan, the two children shared equally.
Nearly a year later, in August 2018, Byron signed a new will through different counsel. The 2018 will again named Christina as personal representative, but this time it left Byron’s entire estate to Christina and provided nothing for Nico, noting that the trust already accounted for him.
The change did not happen in a vacuum. The record described a man whose cognition was slipping. In late 2016 Byron became lost while driving because of memory problems. In February 2017 he tried, unsuccessfully, to revise his will but could not articulate the changes he wanted. In mid-June 2017 (more than a year before he signed the 2018 will) a neurologist diagnosed him with moderate dementia. In 2018 he tried to give away a car, and a friend refused it, believing Byron did not understand what he was doing. Later that year, Byron was found wandering and trying to enter other people’s homes.
Byron died in December 2022. Nico petitioned to invalidate the 2018 will, arguing his father lacked the mental capacity to make it. Christina cross-petitioned to be appointed personal representative under that will. After a four-day bench trial, the superior court admitted the 2018 will to probate, finding that Byron had testamentary capacity when he signed it. Nico appealed.
What Arizona law requires for testamentary capacity
Arizona law sets a deliberately low bar for making a will, and it starts from a strong preference for honoring a person’s wishes. To make a valid will, a person must be at least eighteen and “of sound mind.” Courts have long measured “sound mind” using a three-part test: the testator must be able to know the nature and extent of their property, understand their relationship to the people who would naturally inherit, and understand that they are signing a will.
Two features of Arizona’s statutory framework shaped this appeal.
First, Arizona law presumes that a testator had capacity and acted free of undue influence at the time of execution.
Second, that presumption is rebuttable: a challenger who comes forward with contrary evidence can overcome it by a preponderance of the evidence. Arizona case law also distinguishes between two very different kinds of incapacity: a broad, general mental incompetency, and the narrower situation of a specific delusion or hallucination directly affecting the will. And when capacity is genuinely disputed, courts are directed to weigh the “totality of the circumstances.”
The core question on appeal
The trial court had focused tightly on the day of signing. In its view, capacity is measured at the moment of execution, so evidence about Byron’s condition in the months before and after signing the contested document was largely set aside. The problem, as the Court of Appeals saw it, was that the trial court treated that surrounding evidence as off-limits rather than as relevant proof of Byron’s condition at signing.
The Court of Appeals agreed that capacity is assessed at the time of execution. That much is settled. But it held that this timing rule does not wall off everything that came before or after. Evidence of mental decline surrounding the signing is admissible and relevant precisely because it tends to show the testator’s mental condition at the moment that matters. A neurologist’s dementia diagnosis, an inability to handle a simple car transaction, and episodes of disorientation in the same general period are not irrelevant just because they are not date-stamped to signing day. They are exactly the kind of circumstantial evidence the “totality of the circumstances” standard contemplates.
The court was also troubled by an internal inconsistency in the trial court’s findings. The trial court had found Nico’s witnesses, including expert testimony it called probative and compelling, to be more credible than Christina’s, yet still concluded that Nico had not carried his burden. In the appellate court’s words: “This Court cannot square the superior court’s findings that Christina and other witnesses were unreliable and not credible with its determination that Nico did not meet his burden.”
The outcome
The Court of Appeals reversed the admission of the 2018 will and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court must decide whether Nico rebutted the presumption of capacity and, if so, whether the totality of the evidence shows the will was invalid. In doing so, the Court must keep in mind that surrounding evidence matters only insofar as it illuminates Byron’s mental condition at the time he signed.
Importantly, the decision does not declare the 2018 will invalid. It sends the case back so the trial court can apply the correct evidentiary standard. But the reversal is a meaningful win for a will contestant, and the opinion is now published precedent that other Arizona litigants can rely on. The full opinion is available on the Arizona Court of Appeals website.
What this means for estate planning and litigation
For planning clients and their advisors, Samaras is a reminder that a diagnosis is not a disqualification. But it is an invitation to a challenge. People with a dementia diagnosis can still make valid wills; the legal standard for capacity is modest and is measured at signing.
The practical lesson is that when a client’s capacity may later be questioned, contemporaneous documentation is invaluable. A drafting attorney’s detailed notes, a physician’s letter dated near execution, and careful attention to the relevant factors can make the difference between a will that stands and one that is unwound years later after the client is gone and can no longer explain themselves.
For families considering or defending a will contest, the case clarifies what evidence is fair game. You do not need a witness who can describe the testator’s mind during the signing itself. Evidence of decline in the surrounding weeks and months is relevant and can be enough to rebut the statutory presumption of capacity if the impairment is generalized decline, rather than particular hallucinations. Once that presumption is rebutted, the outcome turns on the whole picture, not a single moment in isolation. And Samaras underscores that a court’s credibility findings and its ultimate ruling need to line up: crediting the challenger’s witnesses while ruling against the challenger is the kind of tension that draws appellate scrutiny.
Will and trust disputes are painful precisely because they arrive after a loved one is gone, when memories and motives can no longer be tested by the person at the center of it all. Careful planning during life, and clear-eyed evaluation of the evidence afterward, are the best tools on both sides.
Frequently asked questions
What is testamentary capacity in Arizona?
Testamentary capacity is the level of mental soundness a person must have to make a valid will. In Arizona, the person must be at least eighteen and of sound mind, meaning they are able to know the nature and extent of their property, understand their relationship to the people who would naturally inherit, and understand that they are signing a will. Capacity is measured at the moment the will is signed.
Can someone with dementia still make a valid will in Arizona?
Yes. A dementia diagnosis does not automatically invalidate a will. The legal standard for capacity is modest, and a person can meet it even after a diagnosis, as long as they had the required understanding at the time of signing. That said, a diagnosis often invites a challenge, which is why contemporaneous documentation of capacity is so valuable.
Can a court consider evidence from before or after the will was signed?
Yes. While capacity is judged at the moment of execution, Samaras v. Samaras confirms that evidence of mental decline in the surrounding weeks and months is admissible and relevant, because it helps show the person’s mental condition at signing. A court should not disregard that evidence simply because it is not date-stamped to signing day.
Who has the burden of proof in an Arizona will contest?
Arizona law presumes that a testator had capacity and acted free of undue influence when the will was executed. A person challenging the will can rebut that presumption with contrary evidence, and must ultimately prove the will’s invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence.
What did the Court of Appeals decide in Samaras v. Samaras?
The court reversed the trial court’s admission of the 2018 will and sent the case back for further proceedings. It held that the trial court applied too narrow a view of the evidence and could not reconcile finding the challenger’s witnesses more credible while still ruling against him. The decision did not declare the will invalid; it directed the trial court to apply the correct evidentiary standard.
Why this matters at Berk Law Group
At Berk Law Group, we focus on Arizona probate, trust, and estate litigation, including will and trust contests and the financial exploitation of vulnerable adults. Testamentary capacity disputes like Samaras v. Samaras sit right at the center of what we do: challenging or defending a will signed after a dementia diagnosis, building the medical and other records that show a testator’s true condition around the day of signing, and helping families protect a loved one’s real intentions.
If you are worried that a will was signed when a family member no longer understood what they were doing, or you are a personal representative defending a will against that claim, the evidence you preserve and how you present it will often decide the outcome. Medical records, witness accounts, and the drafting attorney’s file matter most when they are gathered early, before memories fade and documents disappear. Not sure where your matter stands? Start with our free Arizona probate assessment, then talk to us.
Contact Berk Law Group or call 480.607.7900 to schedule a confidential consultation. For more than 30 years, we have helped Arizonans protect their families, their inheritances, and their rights in court.
Samaras v. Samaras, 1 CA-CV 25-0611 PB (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. One, July 29, 2026)
