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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT