## Q19 key (Second Codicil)
1. Capacity is the weaker attack: the lucid-interval rule, the "clear and conversant" note five weeks prior, and the drafting lawyer's contemporaneous memo make a capacity-only contest likely to fail. Missed: the case is staked on the losing theory.
2. Undue influence is the winning frame: confidential relationship (live-in caregiver), substantial benefit (the house), and active procurement on at least four supplied indicia (found the lawyer, scheduled, drove, supplied the asset list in her own handwriting), raising the presumption and shifting the burden to Sofia. The isolation evidence ("she even tells me who calls") compounds it. Missed: the burden-shift, the case's engine, goes unclaimed.
3. The lawyer's memo cuts both ways and the answer must say so: "alert, adamant, waited outside" helps Sofia on capacity and execution; the caregiver-arranged appointment and her handwritten asset list feed procurement. Missed: one-sided reading of the central document.
4. The brokerage account is a separate, cleaner claim: the bank's own memo ("so Sofia can handle my bills") is direct convenience-account evidence rebutting donative intent, subject to the clear-and-convincing burden. Missed: $700,000 analyzed under the wrong instrument or forgotten.
5. The no-contest clause: by its text it reaches contests of "this will or codicil," not nonprobate transfers, so the account challenge is safe; the codicil contest risks Claire's roughly $675,000 residuary share only if brought without probable cause, and this record (presumption triggered on documented facts) is close to a definitional probable-cause case. Missed: the client is either scared off a protected claim or walks unwarned into forfeiture analysis.
6. The exploitation claim adds recovery of transferred property and fee shifting against Sofia independent of probate, and settlement pressure. Missed: leverage left unused.
7. The arithmetic, stated: do nothing, about $675,000; win both, about $1.45 million; win the account only, about $1.025 million; lose with probable cause, still about $675,000; lose without probable cause on the codicil contest, near zero from the estate. The asymmetry favors contesting given the probable-cause strength. Missed: the client decides without the numbers.
8. Recommended course: challenge the account transfer first or simultaneously (outside the clause), bring the codicil contest on the undue-influence presumption, file or threaten the exploitation claim, and drive to mediation with Erik aligned. First steps: preserve the bank and drafting-lawyer files, retain a geriatric-capacity expert, demand the caregiver's records. Missed: sequencing that triggers risk before leverage exists.