Q Ortelere, a retired teacher, has built up a substantial amount of funds in her retirement plan before she retired because of "involutional psychosis" (a form of mental illness). She has previously specified that a lowered monthly retirement benefit would be paid to her so that her husband would get some benefit from the retirement plan if she died before he did. After her mental problems began, she changed her payout plan and borrowed from the pension fund. As a consequence of the changes she made, her husband lost his rights to benefit. Two months after she made the changes, she died. The husband sued to reverse the changes his wife made, claiming she was not of sound mind when she made them. Will the changes in the plan be voided? Explain your answer. (in our previous chapter you really have nothing to go on other than did the promisor 'comprehend' the bargain, in our current chapter on 'competent parties' we would ask was promisor 'competent' to make this modification? Very similar concept, new term, same facts.) Also, can you see what the 'competency hearing' does for your case?