ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-1857-00

DATE: 20201202

CORRIGENDA: 20201203

BETWEEN:

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH PHILIP JOY

MICHAEL RONALD McGRATH Applicant

– and –

JOANNE JOY, DEXTER RAMSUNDARSINGH and MICHAEL McGRATH JR., by his Litigation Guardian, THE OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER Respondents

COUNSEL:

Kavina Nagrani and Giancarlo Mignardi, for the Applicant

Orie Niedzviecki, for the Respondent, Dexter Ramsundarsingh

Judith L. Turner, for the Respondent, Joanne Joy

Barrie M. Hayes, for the Respondent, Michael McGrath Jr., by his Litigation Guardian, The Office of the Children’s Lawyer

HEARD: November 19, 2020, by videoconference

REVISED JUDGMENT

The text of the original Reasons for Decision has been corrected with the text of the corrigendum (released December 3, 2020)

MULLIGAN J.:

[1] Tragically, Joseph Philip Joy (known as “Jody”) committed suicide on July 13, 2019. The issue for the court on this application is whether or not, under the circumstances of this case, the contents of Jody’s suicide note can be admitted into probate as a holograph will. The parties do not dispute that the note was in his handwriting and signed by him. The focus therefore is whether or not he had the requisite mental capacity under circumstances which the parties acknowledge were suspicious circumstances. For reasons that follow the Application to admit the note as a holograph will is dismissed.

THE SUICIDE NOTE

[2] The handwritten suicide note was transcribed for clarity, as agreed by all parties. Before discussing the suicide note in detail, it is important to outline the parties to these proceedings.

[3] The Applicant is Michael McGrath. Michael is Jody’s step-son. Michael has a son, Michael Jr., now aged 7, whose interests are represented by his litigation guardian, The Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

[4] The responding parties are Joanne Joy, who was Jody’s spouse at the time of his death, and Dexter Ramsundarsingh, who was Jody’s long-time friend, and a shareholder in Jody’s electrical contracting companies.

[5] In addition to the affidavits and supplementary affidavits they filed, the parties were cross-examined. Other affidavits were filed to support the Applicant or the Respondents, including: Steven Ramsundarsingh, who was also Jody’s business partner in the electrical contracting companies. Steven is Dexter’s father; Anne Marie Joy was Jody’s sister; Jacqueline McGrath was Jody’s previous spouse; and Arlene Hamlyn was a family friend. Some of these deponents were also cross-examined. As many of the parties share the same last name, so I will refer to the individuals by their first name in these proceedings.

[6] Before discussing the note and the circumstances surrounding it, it is important to be aware that Jody had signed a Will in 2016. Although that Will was not prepared by a solicitor, it was typed, signed and witnessed. That Will made provisions for various people, including Michael, Michael Jr., and Dexter. Dexter was to receive Jody’s interest in the electrical companies. Steven was named as Estate Trustee. Jody’s spouse, Joanne was to receive the proceeds (after taxes) of a $600,000 life insurance policy, apparently owned by his electrical company.

[7] The suicide note attempted to void Joanne’s benefits to any of Jody’s estate. Dexter is not mentioned in the suicide note. Steven is mentioned, in that Jody directs him as to certain funeral arrangements and other matters. Both Joanne and Dexter take the position that the suicide note ought not to be admitted into probate as a holograph Will. In the event that the note is found to be a holograph will, Dexter takes the alternate position that it ought to be construed as a Codicil to the 2016 Will, having no force and effect on the disposition to Dexter in the 2016 Will.

BACKGROUND

Jody’s Marriage

[8] Jody began dating Joanne in 2013 and they married on April 15, 2016 in a ceremony in Mexico with several family members in attendance.

[9] Prior to that marriage, he was married to Jacqueline McGrath. They married in 2001 and divorced in 2015. Although they had no children of their own, Jaqueline had a son, Michael, who was two years old when they met. Jody raised Michael as his step-son, although Michael was never adopted. Michael worked for Jody’s companies for a number of years, but left in 2011 and, apparently, he and Jody became distant. Things changed several years later when Michael came back to work for the electrical companies as an apprentice electrician. By that time, Michael had a son, Michael Jr., who Jody treated like a grandson. Although Jaqueline was married to Jody for almost 15 years, she made no mention of knowledge about Jody’s drug consumption or alcohol abuse in her affidavit supporting her son Michael, the Applicant. But a pattern of alcohol and drug use is crystal clear in the affidavits and cross-examinations of Joanne, Michael, Dexter and Anne Marie.

[10] I pause to mention that the suicide note provides substantial additional benefits to Jacqueline’s son Michael, and her grandson, Michael Jr.

[11] Prior to Jody’s death, he mentioned Joanne (his then girlfriend) in a 2013 holograph Will. He mentioned her again and provided further benefits in the 2016 typed and witnessed Will. It was clear that there were ups and downs in the marriage and in March of 2019, he moved out of the matrimonial residence. He moved back in later that same year. It appears that the parties were trying to work out their marriage difficulties.

[12] Jody was born in Newfoundland and often went back to visit family and friends. He had a cabin there. His sister, Anne Marie, lived there and they frequently visited back and forth. There was a plan to visit Newfoundland in August with Joanne, Michael and Michael Jr. Jody had already purchased a ticket for Michael Jr.

July 12, 2019

[13] Jody was an electrician. At the time of his death, he was 49 years old. He worked a Monday to Thursday work week and, as was typical, he was off on Fridays. He spent a considerable amount of time cleaning his boat in the garage that day. Evidently, plans had been made to go boating the next day. Michael and Michael Jr. had been invited over for the weekend, but they were unable to attend.

Jody’s Alcohol and Drug Abuse

[14] There was a considerable amount of evidence in the affidavits and cross-examinations about Jody’s alcohol and drug use. Although he had never been diagnosed for alcoholism or drug abuse, family and friends had years to observe his behaviour. Facts about his consumption on the day in question came from the affidavit of his spouse, Joanne, who was with him all day, as well as Dexter, who spoke to him on the phone at about 6:30 p.m. and Arlene, who spoke with him on a FaceTime call at about 11:00 p.m. that night. Others had observed excessive alcohol and drug use for years.

Anne Marie Joy

[15] Although Anne Marie lived in Newfoundland, she had a close relationship with her brother, Jody. He visited her often and she visited him in Ontario. She was aware that he consumed beer and hard liquor and had consumed hash oil for over 10 years, although she was unaware of his day to day life in Ontario. She spoke of one incident that scared her when Jody was visiting and had consumed alcohol and hash oil. Although she is not an expert, she thought that her brother was definitely depressed.

Michael McGrath

[16] Michael’s affidavit filed with his Application was silent as to Jody’s drug or alcohol use or abuse. However, in his supplementary affidavit, he spoke to the issue, responding to the allegations raised in affidavits stating, “the fact that Jody consumed alcohol and smoked hash on the date that he took his life is not surprising. For as long as I can remember, Jody drank alcohol and smoked hash regularly.”

Steven Ramsundarsingh

[17] Jody’s business partner, Steven, noted that Jody drank alcohol daily and he had seen Jody using hash oil. Steven stated that Jody had issues in his first marriage as well as when alcohol was consumed.

Dexter Ramsundarsingh

[18] Dexter had a very close relationship with Jody almost from birth. His father, Steve, was Jody’s friend and business partner in the electrical business. Dexter came to be employed in the business and is currently an electrician. Steven and Jody did a business reorganization several years ago and Dexter became the holder of all common shares. Jody and Steven retained preferred shares in the business. In cross-examinations, Dexter testified that Jody would not drink on the job but otherwise would drink after work and, on the weekend, he would begin drinking beer in the morning, later switching to vodka or tequila. Dexter’s opinion was that Jody had substance abuse problems. Dexter spoke to Jody at about 6:30 p.m. on July 12, 2019. He thought that Jody was drunk, and Jody told him that he would be switching to liquor. Jody spoke about a job loss that he had learned about that day. Apparently, a bid on a job had not been accepted. It was his feeling that Jody’s consumption of alcohol and hash oil had increased substantially in the previous six months.

Joanne Joy

[19] Jody’s spouse, Joanne, gave evidence about his drinking and hash consumption throughout the marriage and on the day in question. It was her evidence in cross-examination that on a typical day when he was not working, he would begin drinking beer first thing in the morning and could easily consume 12 to 24 beer before switching to liquor later in the evening. At the same time, he would smoke hash oil continually throughout the day. She was not aware of any blackouts or hallucinations but noted that Jody would typically end up in bed at the end of the day.

Arlene Hamlyn

[20] Later during the evening in question, at about 11:00 p.m., Jody and Joanne were doing a FaceTime call with their mutual friend, Arlene, who resided in Edmonton. Arlene’s affidavit indicated that she felt that Jody was drunk. Something happened during the FaceTime call and she testified that Jody left the call and she could hear a door slam.

After the FaceTime Call

[21] It was Joanne’s evidence was that something happened on this FaceTime call causing Jody to leave in a rage. That was the last time that Joanne saw Jody alive.

[22] When Joanne went to bed sometime later, Jody was already asleep in bed, after a day and night of alcohol and drug consumption. Joanne got in bed with him. She awoke around 5:00 a.m., but Jody was not there. She found him hanging in the hallway, having taken his own life. He was still wearing his wedding ring. The police attended. No toxicology report was ever ordered. The coroner determined that the death was by suicide.

The Suicide Note

[23] In my view, the suicide note is a profanity laced diatribe aimed at Jody’s spouse, Joanne. It is clear that the note was done shortly before he committed suicide. As he stated in the note, “I am very nervous of what I am about to do”. He also stated, “I am beyond my control because of her”. His stated intention is clear, “anything in my Will that has her name on it is VOID”. The suicide note goes on to give Steven directions about Joanne not attending his funeral and spreading his ashes at the pond in front of his cabin in Newfoundland.

[24] In addition to the profanities, the Will contained many spelling errors, words crossed out and some words were capitalized, such as “VOID”.

[25] Dexter testified as to Jody’s handwriting and noted that the handwriting was sloppy and all over the place, and even his signature looked sloppy.

The Expert Report

[26] The Applicant submitted an expert report of Dr. Mark Sinyor, a psychiatrist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. Dr. Sinyor has conducted extensive research in suicide related activities since 2004 and written a number of academic papers on the subject. He has spent a considerable amount of his professional time managing suicidality in patients. In preparation of his report, he reviewed Michael’s Application, including his Affidavits, as well as Joanne and Dexter’s Affidavits. With his report, he provided a CV and his acknowledgement of the duty of an expert to assist the court pursuant to r. 4.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. Dr. Sinyor noted that the important question posed to him by the Applicant’s counsel was question 6, “Can someone be intoxicated and continue to have unimpaired judgment?”

[27] His opinion provided,

In my opinion, Mr. Joy’s suicide note is a valid holograph Will unless the court determines (a) that he was under the influence of alcohol and/or cannabis at the time he wrote his suicide noted and (b) that he was so intoxicated that he made a decision about how to bequeath his estate that was a product of a transient, impaired state of mind produced by the intoxication which did not reflect his true beliefs and wishes.”

[28] In his conclusion, Dr. Sinyor was unable to make a definitive pronouncement as to whether Mr. Joy was intoxicated with alcohol and/or cannabis at the time. As he stated in his report:

I am not able to arrive at a definitive pronouncement as to whether Mr. Joy was or was not intoxicated with alcohol and/or cannabis at the time of his writing his suicide note and holograph Will, or whether that potential intoxication might have been sufficient to make him in capable of leaving a Will and therefore I cannot draw a definitive conclusion about Mr. Joy’s testamentary capacity at the time.

[29] However, I pause to note that experts have an ongoing duty pursuant to r. 4.1.01. Subparagraph (c) states: “to provide such additional assistance as the court may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue.”

[30] Dr. Sinyor was unable to make a definitive pronouncement about whether or not Mr. Joy was intoxicated. Although I do not fault him, considerable additional evidence came forward in cross-examinations of various witnesses. This further information was not provided to Dr. Sinyor and no further or supplementary report was filed with the court. A review of those cross-examinations revealed that:

• Jody’s sister, Anne Marie, said that he had consumed hash for over 10 years and she thought that he was depressed;

• Dexter said that Jody had a substance abuse problem and had been drinking heavily and was drunk that night;

• Steven said that Jody had consumed alcohol and hash daily;

• Joanne said it would not be unusual for Jody to drink 12 to 24 beer per day and then turn to vodka while smoking hash oil cigarettes during the day, a pattern he followed that day as well; and,

• Steven noted that during the 6:30 p.m. phone call, he thought that Jody was drunk, Arlene had the same reaction when she spoke with Jody and Joanne on a FaceTime call at 11:00 p.m.

[31] Under these circumstances, I give very little weight to the expert’s report. Put simply, the expert has not provided the additional assistance to the court as required under r. 4.1.01(c).

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Holograph Wills

[32] Holograph Wills have long been an accepted form of testamentary disposition in Ontario. Paragraph 6 of the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26 (SLRA) provides as follows:

A testator may make a valid will wholly by his or her own handwriting and signature, without formality, and without the presence, attestation or signature of a witness.

[33] Rule 74.04(1)(d) further provides,

if the will or a codicil is in holograph form, an affidavit attesting that the handwriting and signature in the will or codicil are those of the deceased.

[34] Rule 75 deals with contentious proceedings and outlines a procedure which is often called proving a Will in solemn form.

[35] Holograph wills play an important role in a testator documenting his or her intentions prior to death. As long as they are hand-written by the testator and signed by him or her, they can be admitted to probate provided that capacity is not an issue. But caution must be exercised when there are special circumstances. Unlike a formal will prepared by a lawyer, notes and observations of the lawyer taking instructions, reading over the will and due execution do not take place. Even a typed will signed by the testator and witnessed by two people can provide an opportunity for at least the witnesses to be examined as to their observations when the will was signed. Again, even this modest level of scrutiny is not available for a holograph will.

[36] A suicide note is certainly a special circumstance that requires close scrutiny. It is not a holograph will unless it meets the statutory requirements and is supported by finding of testamentary capacity.

ANALYSIS

[37] In Vout v. Hay, 1995 105 SCC, Sopenka J. speaking for the court, outlined the evidentiary burden when suspicious circumstances exist. The court noted two incidents of suspicious circumstances at paragraph 25 and stated, “The suspicious circumstances may be raised by (1) circumstances surrounding the preparation of the will, (2) circumstances tending to call into question the capacity of the testator…” Sopinka J. continued at paragraph 26,

The burden with respect to testamentary capacity will be affected as well if the circumstances reflect on the mental capacity of the testator to make a will. Although the propounder of the will has the legal burden with respect to due execution, knowledge and approval, and testamentary capacity, the propounder is aided by a rebuttable presumption. Upon proof that the will was duly executed with the requisite formalities, after being read over to or by the testator who appeared to understand it, it will generally be presumed that the testator knew and approved of the contents and had the necessary testamentary capacity.

[38] However, Sopinka J. cautioned in paragraph 27,

where suspicious circumstances are present, then the presumption is spent and the propounder of the will reassumes the legal burden of proving knowledge and approval. In addition, if the suspicious circumstances relate to mental capacity, the propounder of the will reassumes legal burden of establishing testamentary capacity. Both of these issues must be approved in accordance with the civil standard.

[39] The parties acknowledge that the suicide note was in Jody’s handwriting and signed by him. But suspicious circumstances are acknowledged due to the circumstances surrounding Jody’s suicide in the early hours of July 13, 2019. I find that the legal burden of establishing testamentary capacity falls upon Michael McGrath as the propounder of the suicide note.

[40] In Yeas v. Yeas, 2017 ONSC 7402, Kerschman J. reviewed the law of testamentary capacity and provided a summary of facts to consider when suspicious circumstances exist at para. 242:

To have testamentary capacity, the testator must be of sound mind, memory and understanding or, to put it another way, he/she must have a sound and disposing mind. The elements of a sound and disposing mind are, that on his/her own initiative and volition, the testator:

1. understands the nature and effect of a will;

2. recollects the nature and extent of his or her property;

3. understands the extent of what he or she is giving under the will;

4. remembers the people he or she might be expected to benefit under his or her will; and,

5. understands the nature of the claims that may be made by persons he or she is excluding under the will.

[citations omitted]

[41] The English decision of Banks and Goodfellow, (1861–73) all ER REP 47, has for decades provided guidance on capacity. As the court stated at page 56,

It is essential to the exercise of such a power that a testator shall understand the nature of the act and its effects; shall understand the extent of the property of which he is disclosing; shall be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which he ought to give effect; with a view to the later object that no disorder of the mind shall poison his affections, pervert his sense of right, or prevent the exercise of his natural faculties; that no insane delusion shall influence his will on disposing of his property and bring about a disposal of it which would not have been made otherwise.

[42] In addition to the leading case of Banks and Goodfellow, the Applicant filed a casebook of authorities on suicide notes and other letters as possible holograph wills.

[43] In Quirk v. Wernicke (1983), 15 ETR 197 (Sask Surr Ct), the testator suffered depression and left a note in 1981, and committed suicide in 1982. The court noted at para 13 “suicide, in itself does not show testamentary incapacity, although it is a circumstance to be considered” [citations omitted] The court ruled that the testator was of sound mind when the note was written but it was not intended to be a will. Consequently, it was not admitted to probate.

[44] In Morrison v Owen (1991), 44 ETR 290 (Ont Gen Div), a will was prepared in 1989. The testator then wrote back to the solicitor, the formalities of a holograph will were present. The letter to the solicitor was found to be sufficient to be a holograph will.

[45] In Bennett v. Toronto General Trusts Corp, 1958 49 (SCC), [1958] SCR 392, a letter to the testator’s solicitor, written three years earlier, was found not to be a holograph will but merely preliminary instructions to her solicitor.

[46] In Niziol v. Allen 2011 ONSC 7457, a note was written in 2001, after the testator had a falling out with family members. She then died in 2003. The court found no suspicious circumstances and admitted the holograph will to probate.

[47] In Poppwich v. Capasso 2012 ABQB 665, the testator wrote a long letter to her mother on the day she died. The court found that the technical requirements for a holograph will were present and that she had capacity but the letter was not testamentary in nature and was not admitted to probate.

[48] Pommerehnke Estate (1979) 4 ETR 169 (Alta Surr Ct), bears some similarity to the facts in this case. The testator suffered from depression and wrote a suicide note. She then left the note outside the house and committed suicide by burning the house down while inside. A toxicology report found a high degree of alcohol in her system. The court found the note was a holograph will. It was legible and she did not disregard other family members completely. After considering her daily consumption of alcohol, the court noted at para 26:

There is nothing, however, to indicate that her consumption of alcohol was such that it occupied all of her time or that it was a daily factor in her life. In fact, her friend Mrs. Lehman stated that she had never seen Mrs. Pommerehnke drunk. Dr. Miyauchi who was concerned about her drinking stated that he never saw her intoxicated. The autopsy report indicated that there was a high degree of alcohol in her blood at the time of her death but this does not appear to have been the case at the time of writing the note.

[49] In Hall v. Bennett Estate, 2003 7157 (ON CA), 64 O.R. (3d) 191 ONCA, Charron J.A. speaking for the court provided guidance on the law of testamentary capacity at para. 14:

Numerous cases have dealt with the question of testamentary capacity. It has often been repeated that a testator must have a “sound disposing mind” to make a valid will. The following requirements can be extricated from the case law. In order to have a sound disposing mind, a testator:

• must understand the nature and effect of a will;

• must recollect the nature and extent of his or her property;

• must understand the extent of what he or she is giving under the will;

• must remember the persons that he or she might be expected to benefit under his or her will; and

• where applicable, must understand the nature of the claims that may be made by persons he or she is excluding from the will.

[50] Charron J.A. continued at para. 15,

It is also clear from the jurisprudence that the test to be met to prove testamentary capacity is a high one and the onus falls upon the propounder of the will. The jurisprudence abounds with statements that it is not sufficient simply to show that a testator had the capacity to communicate his or her testamentary wishes. Those wishes must be shown to be the product of a sound and disposing mind as described above.

POSITION OF MICHAEL McGRATH

[51] I accept the applicant’s statement at para. 18 of his Factum, “a person who makes a testamentary instrument and then commits suicide can have testamentary capacity. In other words, the fact of a suicide is not per se sufficient to undermine capacity.” Michael further submits that Jody, having made prior wills, understood the nature and effect of a will. The note contains testamentary language and as submitted at para. 19 of the Factum: “the Suicide Note looks plainly like a Will, it reads plainly as a Will, and the court should find that it is, in fact, a Will.”

[52] In this case there was no toxicology report ordered. The consumption of alcohol and cannabis was not unusual for Jody, in fact, it was typical behaviour. Further, the suicide note clearly expressed an intention to favour Michael and Michael Jr. and to eliminate totally any assets passing to his spouse, Joanne.

[53] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer, Michael McGrath Jr.’s Litigation Guardian, adopts the position of the applicant in these proceedings.

POSITION OF DEXTER RAMSUNDARSINGH

[54] The Factum of the respondent, Dexter, at para. 39 provides:

The Applicant has failed to prove that Jody had testamentary capacity such that this court could find that the Suicide Note is a valid will or codicil for the following reasons:

(a) Jody’s capacity is called into question by his suicide and the words in the Suicide Note, which presumably reflects his state of mind at the time of writing and includes language like “…this fucking bitch that I married drove me to this” and “I am beyond my control because of her” which creates strong inference that Jody was not acting with capacity;

(b) Furthermore, if accepted, the Suicide Note is a drastic departure from the 2014 Will and 2016 Will and such a departure made on the spur of the moment immediately before a suicide brings into question the capacity of maker; and

(c) Despite these areas of concern, the only expert to opine on Jody’s suicide has specifically said that he cannot conclude that Jody had capacity – this, in and of itself, is a failure of the Applicant to propound the Suicide Note as a valid testamentary instrument. If the Applicant’s own expert can’t find capacity, then it should be beyond question that capacity has not been proven.

POSITION OF JOANNE JOY

[55] Joanne Joy submits that Michael McGrath has failed to meet his evidentiary burden that Jody had testamentary capacity at the time the suicide note was written.

CONCLUSION

[56] I am not satisfied that the applicant, Michael McGrath, has met his evidentiary burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the suicide note was in fact a holograph will. Although no individual factor may be determinative, the cumulative effect of the evidence before the court leads to the conclusion that Jody’s testamentary capacity has not been proven by the Applicant. The following points assist me in making that determination.

• His long-time business partner, Steve, thought Jody was subject to substance abuse. Dexter thought he was drunk at 6:30 p.m. that day during the phone call. Arlene thought Jody was drunk at 11:00 p.m. that evening during the FaceTime call.

• On that day, Joanne noted his pattern of drinking and drug consumption all day and evening.

• The expert’s report of Dr. Sinyor, was inconclusive as to Jody’s incapacity; however, he did not have the benefit of cross-examination evidence about the history of drug and alcohol abuse or the actual consumption that day based on the evidence of Joanne, who had the opportunity to observe him, or Dexter or Arlene who had telephone calls with him at various times that evening.

• On a day when plans had been made to go boating the next day, and future plans had existed to visit Newfoundland with Joanne, Michael and his grandson, Michael Jr. Jody committed suicide some time between midnight and 5:00 a.m. on July 13, 2019. After a full day of alcohol and drug consumption he wrote a note and hung himself, stating in the note, “I am beyond my control…because of her.”

• The handwritten note was sloppy and nearly illegible. Jody was depressed, according to his sister. The excessive use of alcohol and hash oil cigarettes was a part of his daily life according to those who knew him best.

• The suicide note was a profanity laced diatribe against his spouse, Joanne. Michael McGrath noted in his affidavit at paragraph 31 that it showed “pure distain” for Joanne.

[57] The Application to admit the note as a holograph will is dismissed.

CODICIL

[58] Because the note has not been found to be a holograph will, it is not necessary to consider Dexter’s alternate submission that the note could be considered a codicil to Jody’s 2016 will.

COSTS

[59] The responding parties have been the successful parties in this Application. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on costs, I will receive written submissions not exceeding 5 pages, together with a Bill of Costs from the Respondents and from counsel for Michael McGrath Jr. within 10 days from the release of this decision. The Applicant will then have a further 5 days to respond with submissions not exceeding 5 pages, together with a Bill of Costs. There will be no right of reply.

The Honourable Mr. Justice G.M. Mulligan

Released: December 3, 2020

CORRIGENDA

1. The third line of paragraph [22] has been amended to correct the time from 5:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., to correctly reads as follows:

She awoke around 5:00 a.m., but Jody was not there.

2. The second line of paragraph [55] has been amended to remove the name “McGrath” after the name “Jody”, to correctly read as follows:

…his evidentiary burden that Jody had testamentary capacity…