ILNews

Guarding against undue influence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Changes in a person’s will and estate plan that vary from equal distribution of assets among heirs, as favored by law, should raise red flags, elder law attorneys say.

State law carries a presumption of the exercise of undue influence in such cases. In instances where a dispute among rightful heirs may result in litigation, practitioners say attorneys have a duty to ensure that their client hasn’t exerted undue influence.

certain-joseph.jpg Certain

“You have to establish to your own satisfaction that the individual is competent and capable of handling their own affairs,” Marion attorney Joseph Certain said of the grantor in such cases. “You have to look at the relationship between the individuals and why they’re doing what they’re doing.”

Certain represented the prevailing party at the trial court level in a case recently affirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals, largely due to precautions counsel took in a guardianship case with an unusual set of circumstances.

Phyllis Hayes agreed in 2005 to execute a promissory note, mortgage, will and option contract that gave her son, Kenneth, the right to purchase the family’s 200-acre farm in southern Miami County for $500,000.

Kenneth Hayes had loaned his parents $180,000 several years earlier, and the record revealed this helped save the family farm. But when Kenneth Hayes said he planned to purchase the farm in 2010 by exercising the option agreement his mother signed, his sisters Jo Ann Hayes and Diane Hale objected, particularly because the value of farmland had more than tripled since the contract was signed.

Though Kenneth Hayes had power of attorney over his mother, he hadn’t used it to facilitate the land sale, the record says. Lawyers who represented him at the trial court and on appeal said they made sure that had been the case.

Certain said the case circumstances were very unusual, “which is why we took extra steps to document the whole process.”

Certain represented Kenneth Hayes when the trial court allowed him to purchase the farm under the 2005 contract. The Court of Appeals affirmed May 29 in Guardianship of Phyllis D. Hayes, an Adult, Joann Hayes and Dianna Hale v. Kenneth J. Hayes, 52A02-1308-GU-751.

In representing Kenneth Hayes, Certain said he visited with Phyllis Hayes independently in 2005, as did his office manager. They wanted to see for themselves, individually, that Phyllis Hayes was competent. They also got a doctor’s statement saying she was capable of making decisions regarding her estate.

Certain said Phyllis Hayes “was very well-spoken and comported herself very well” and continued to handle her own affairs and take an active role in managing the farm. He asked her why she was changing her estate plan, and she explained that not only had her son helped out in hard times, he also helped run the farm until his father died a few years earlier and had continued to assist.

“Our sole interest was to do the best we could to demonstrate that (Phyllis Hayes) was capable and to see what we could do to get her wishes carried out,” Certain said.

beeman-thomas.jpg Beeman

“She wanted the son to get repaid with interest for the money he put into the farm to save it for the family, and, if he was so desirous, to keep the farm in the family,” he said.

Certain was so sure of Phyllis Hayes’ competence that he chose to videotape her talking about why she changed the estate plan – a move he admits could have backfired. In this case, though, “It’s hard to look at that tape and suggest she was anything other than fully competent or there was any evidence of anyone trying to influence her.”

That was a concern when he chose to turn on the camera, though. “What I was concerned about was it would look like I was influencing her,” Certain said. “I tried to be very careful. … I just asked her two questions and let her explain.”

That concern is a legitimate one, said Indianapolis attorney John Cremer. He has never used a video record in the thousands of estate matters he has handled. He believes elderly people may become anxious when the camera is introduced and they consider the gravity of what they say. “The lawyer ends up cueing the client and making it look unnatural,” Cremer said.

If he were to use a video, Cremer said he might opt for something closer to a “day in the life” scenario, following the client and allowing her to discuss why one family member is being favored over another. But video may present another danger. If a video statement is taken in one case and it’s not a common practice, the motivation for recording a particular client could come into play, he said.

“I think there are better ways to protect the plan than to videotape,” Cremer said. “I’m a big proponent of clinical capacity assessments.” Those assessments are done by a health care practitioner who’s instructed on the legal standards for capacity, so “the clinician knows exactly what to test for.”

Anderson attorney Thomas Beeman argued the Hayes case successfully before the Court of Appeals and said the record was replete with evidence of the mother’s competence. Crucial to overcoming the presumption of undue influence, Beeman said, Kenneth Hayes was never involved in drafting the contract giving him the option to buy the farm, and his mother was represented by counsel during that time.

“When an attorney allows one of the children to be involved in the process itself, it brings into the picture all kinds of inferences,” Beeman said, noting the care taken in this case to keep Kenneth Hayes and his counsel from advising Phyllis Hayes.

“You see a lot of cases where that’s not the way it was done,” Beeman said. “Attorneys seem to have a blind spot where that’s concerned.”

Beeman said he might have done one thing differently in this case back in 2005: obtain an appraisal of the farmland. But attorneys did the next-best thing, offering testimony from an appraiser that the agreement had been based on fair-market value per acre of farmland at the time the contract was drawn.

Indianapolis attorney Claire Lewis said it’s imperative for lawyers to do a little detective work when an heir or grantor attempts to change estate plans in their favor. Lewis is a board member for the Indiana Chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys.

“If you’ve got a parent with six children and all of a sudden they’re deciding to leave everything to one child, I’m going to ask some really tough questions,” Lewis said. “Why are you changing it? Why now?”

lewis-claire.jpg Lewis

It’s also important that attorneys document what’s said and their impressions of the person’s competence, Lewis explained.

“One of the things I always caution – especially younger attorneys – you have to make sure you know who your client is,” Lewis said. “If there’s any question of capacity … meeting with the client outside the presence of any family members is paramount.”

Lewis also tries to make sure questions of competency are addressed before any changes are made. “When in doubt, you can always ask for a doctor’s certificate of capacity,” she said.

There are legitimate reasons why an older adult, particularly one subject to a guardianship, might chose to amend a will, Lewis said. Perhaps one sibling has sacrificed to provide care, for example, and the parent decides a greater share of the estate is warranted.

Certain summed up his advice this way: “When a client treats a legal heir either more favorably than others or less favorably than others, that to me is a signal that I want to make an inquiry into the thought process that the individual is going through.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  2. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  3. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

  4. For some strange reason this story, like many on this ezine that question the powerful, seems to have been released in two formats. Prior format here: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263 That observed, I must note that it is quite refreshing that denizens of the great unwashed (like me) can be allowed to openly question powerful elitists at ICE MILLER who are on the public dole like Selby. Kudos to those at this ezine who understand that they cannot be mere lapdogs to the powerful and corrupt, lest freedom bleed out. If you wonder why the Senator resisted Selby, consider reading the comments here for a theory: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263

  5. Why is it a crisis that people want to protect their rights themselves? The courts have a huge bias against people appearing on their own behalf and these judges and lawyers will face their maker one day and answer for their actions.

ADVERTISEMENT