letters from Ms. Eaton’s psychotherapist. The key letter, dated April 12, 2011, states that the therapist treated Ms. Eaton from June 2004 until January 2008, and that during this period Ms. Eaton met the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, that she needed a great deal of help functioning, and that her ability to manage her daily affairs “was profoundly impacted.” ¶ 17. The trial court was unpersuaded. While the letters might show that Ms. Eaton suffered from stress, trauma, and depression, the court found that they were insufficient to raise a genuine factual dispute as to her capacity to pursue her legal interests in light of the overwhelming record evidence that she actively sought to protect her rights during the period in question. See Fila, 2005 VT 77, ¶ 12 (<HOLDING>). The evidence included Ms. Eaton’s complaint
holding that party that failed to object to instruction that jury not answer a question based on its answer to the prior question waived that partys right to have the jury make findings as to the subsequent question holding that conclusion as to ownership of land is a legal question where parties do not dispute trial courts findings of fact recognizing that  while generally a jury question  the trial court may decide a partys capacity to pursue his or her legal rights under  551 where the evidence is insufficient to raise a factual dispute holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact holding that where no factual dispute is raised no hearing is required