Just because a deceased person was sane does not mean that some of his decisions cannot be discussed as perhaps not expressing his will with certainty.
It may be, according to the Court of Cassation, that the circumstances in which he expressed or signed his wishes cast doubt on whether he expressed what he really wanted and understood the scope of his decision.
By virtue of this principle, the Court of Cassation questioned the decision taken by a father to change the beneficiaries of his life insurance.
A few months before his death, he had dictated and signed two riders in order to change the names of the beneficiaries of his life insurance, that is to say the people who would receive the amount saved by benefiting from the tax advantage attached to this investment. . The old and the new beneficiaries therefore argued, the first denying that the deceased really wanted this change and that the signing of the endorsement reflected his certain will.
He was of sound mind, replied the new beneficiaries, and the Civil Code only imposes this requirement for an act to be valid, in addition to the absence of a defect in the consent (error, fraud or violence) which is not not invoked in this case.
But even if insanity of mind is excluded, even if the decisions in question are neither incoherent, nor absurd, nor excessive, it is indeed necessary to consider all the external circumstances which surrounded the signing of the documents in order to verify that ‘It reflected well, with certainty and unequivocally, the desire to modify the clause designating the beneficiaries, ruled the Court of Cassation.
By ordering this verification, the judges therefore ruled in favor of the former beneficiaries who observed that the signed text had been dictated by a third party and that the signature seemed shaky and uncertain.
(Cass. Civ 1, 5.4.2023, D 21-12.875).
Reproduction forbidden.