Facts
The appellant [X.] and the respondent [Y.] are the children of [W.] deceased (15 November 1912 - 21 February 2007). On 12 April 2006, [W.] had established a public will in her apartment in Baden with the participation of notary Dr. Fridolin [S.] , revoking two previous wills of 16 September 1993 and 2 July 1998.
On 26 November 2007, [X.] requested the Justice of the Peace of the district of Baden to mediate in the dispute over the validity of the will of 12 April 2006. Based on the order of 13 April 2008, she filed a lawsuit with the District Court of Baden on 25 June 2008 and requested that the will of 12 April 2006 be declared invalid pursuant to Art. 519 CC.
The District Court of Baden dismissed the lawsuit with a judgment of 9 November 2010; the reasoned judgment was served on the plaintiff on 20 July 2011. Thereupon, [X.] appealed to the High Court of the Canton of Aargau and requested that the judgment of the lower court be overturned and the lawsuit be approved. To the extent still relevant before the Federal Court, the High Court dismissed the appeal (decision of 24 April 2012).
With a complaint of 8 June 2012, [X.] appeals to the Federal Court, requesting that the judgment of the lower court be overturned and the lawsuit against [Y.] be approved.
Considerations
The Federal Court has obtained the cantonal files, but no statements. The complaint is directed against a cantonal final decision in a civil matter of a financial nature, whose amount in dispute exceeds CHF 30,000. The timely filed complaint is admissible (Art. 72 para. 1, Art. 74 para. 1 lit. b, Art. 75 para. 1, Art. 90 and 100 FSCA).
The issue in dispute is the question of how the testator's capacity ("testatrix") was at the time of the establishment of the public will. According to Art. 467 CC, only a person who is capable of judgment can make a will. A person is capable of judgment within the meaning of this Act if they are not lacking the ability to act reasonably due to their age or due to mental illness, mental weakness, intoxication or similar conditions (Art. 16 CC).
The High Court based its assessment of the evidence primarily on the geriatric psychiatric report of the Psychiatric Services Aargau of 16 June 2010 ("report"), which the first instance had obtained to clarify the question of capacity. According to this report, the testatrix suffered from moderate dementia in the sense of the 10th edition of the "International Classification of Diseases ("ICD-10")" at the time of the establishment of the disputed will.
The appellant considers the High Court's assessment of the evidence to be arbitrary in several…