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. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT