ILNews

Court: Don't assume undue influence by child

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals used an opinion issued today to caution courts to not assume a child is exerting undue influence over a parent when analyzing cases involving adult children assisting an aging parent.

In Bruce Barkwill v. The Cornelia H. Barkwill Revocable Trust, No. 64A04-0808-CV-455, the appellate judges had to decide whether Cornelia Barkwill revised her trust under undue influence from her son Jeffrey Barkwill. Jeffrey lived near Cornelia, assisted her in getting a line of credit on her homes, and issued checks drawn on that line of credit to her when needed. He also advanced around $230,000 of his own money to her throughout the years. Bruce lived in Florida and only saw his mother twice between 1998 and when she died in 2007.

After taking Valium without a prescription, Cornelia became disoriented and confused, leaving her house in disarray. She told Bruce she thought Jeffrey and his family was stealing from her. After she stopped taking the Valium, Cornelia returned to her normal self and worked with an attorney to revise her trust to remove Bruce as a beneficiary. She named Jeffrey as sole beneficiary.

The trial court found the 2006 trust to be valid. It ruled that even if Meyer v. Wright, 854 N.E.2d 57, 60-61(Ind. Ct. App. 2006) and Allender v. Allender, 833 N.E.2d 529, 533 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), do stand for the idea advanced by Bruce that a presumption of invalidity attaches to a gift from a parent to a caretaker child because the child is in a fiduciary relationship to the parent, and creates an inference the gift is a result of undue influence, the facts in the instant case overcome that presumption.

On appeal, Bruce claimed the trial court failed to apply the necessary presumption of undue influence by Jeffrey on Cornelia. He believed the financial arrangements between Jeffery and their mother points to his obvious dominant position. Jeffrey argued that no presumption of undue influence attached to his relationship with his mother and Bruce had misinterpreted the trial court's finding on the issue.

The appellate court found Cornelia's arrangements with Jeffery weren't her only means of income, she didn't depend on him on a daily basis, and he wasn't in a dominant role in the relationship with his mother at the time she changed the trust. Also, unlike the circumstances in Meyer or Allender, Jeffery wasn't involved in the revision to the trust, wrote Judge Michael Barnes.

This issue is one that will garner continued attention as the baby boomer generation ages, wrote the judge. The appellate court warned courts to proceed with caution in analyzing the parent-child relationship when a child is a caretaker of the parent and not to automatically presume the child is in a dominant role and exerting undue influence over the parent.

"We caution that love, attention, and occasional assistance provided by an adult child typically and naturally arise from a sense of filial duty. It seems unreasonable for our courts to rely exclusively upon care, compassion, or generosity by an adult child for their ailing parent and then render such actions suspect," he wrote. "These relationships must be carefully examined in light of the surrounding circumstances before any conclusions regarding that child's dominance and influence be made."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Agree with UI ruling
    I wholeheartedly agree with this Judge's ruling and applaud it. I am searching to see if any Michigan cases such as this holding. The courts I hope will not equate love, attention, respect, assistance to undue influence. Need more judges who will think that way--outside of the box. Thank you.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT