DAVID ROSS v. BETTY J. BLACKWELL
146 A.3d 385
| D.C. | 2016Background
- Decedent Elsie Hamilton executed wills in Aug. 2003 and Sept. 2008 naming David Ross and Daphne Arrindell (appellants) as sole beneficiaries; the Superior Court found those wills void for undue influence and later approved an Auditor-Master recommendation charging appellants with the outstanding balance on a $127,000 mortgage they had placed on Hamilton’s house.
- Hamilton was nearly blind, bed-bound, and dependent on caregivers; appellants became involved shortly before the 2003 will (Ross was appointed guardian and Arrindell conservator).
- Evidence credited by the trial court included testimony that appellants isolated Hamilton from longtime friends, concealed actions (including a mortgage) from the court and conservator, and misrepresented facts to the court.
- The conservator/attorney Philip Zipin prepared the 2003 will at Hamilton’s request, but appellants acknowledged knowledge of Zipin’s involvement and were present at signing.
- The Auditor Master, after hearing that appellants used their own funds (not loan proceeds) for most renovations, nonetheless recommended charging appellants with the remaining mortgage balance; the trial court adopted that recommendation.
- Appellants claimed (1) the court used the wrong legal standard and relied on weak/hearsay evidence to find undue influence and (2) they should receive offsets/credits for over $250,000 they say they personally spent renovating Hamilton’s house.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 2003 and 2008 wills (undue influence) | Appellees: The wills were procured by appellants’ undue influence given isolation, concealment, and control over Hamilton. | Appellants: Hamilton had testamentary capacity and the wills fit her prior pattern of leaving assets to caregivers; no clear proof of undue influence. | Court upheld trial judge: wills void for undue influence based on dependency, isolation, concealment, credibility findings, and control that destroyed free agency. |
| Burden/presumption when fiduciary/confidential relationship exists | Appellees: Where confidential/ fiduciary relationship exists, less is needed to establish undue influence. | Appellants: D.C. requires proof of undue influence; the judge applied a presumption improperly. | Court: Judge acknowledged burden rules, explicitly found appellees met burden even if they bore full burden; application of the special circumstances rule was proper. |
| Admissibility/weight of hearsay and credibility of isolation evidence | Appellees: Unobjected-to hearsay and witness testimony supported isolation and were admissible and credited. | Appellants: Much evidence was hearsay and weak, so cannot sustain undue influence finding. | Court: Unobjected hearsay can be competent; judge’s credibility choices are entitled to deference and support the undue influence finding. |
| Auditor-Master recommendation & credit for appellants’ renovation expenditures | Appellants: They should get offset/credit for provable out-of-pocket renovation costs against the mortgage liability. | Appellees/Administrator: Loan proceeds remained unaccounted for; renovations were largely paid by appellants and not chargeable to estate. | Court: No abuse of discretion; Auditor Master properly limited scope to loan proceeds; appellants failed to present testimony/claims at trial or timely file claims; many renovations were not necessary conservator expenditures and any recovery may be a separate unjust-enrichment claim against beneficiaries. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ingersoll Trust, 950 A.2d 672 (D.C. 2008) (legal standards for undue influence and effect on free agency)
- Roberts-Douglas v. Meares, 624 A.2d 405 (D.C. 1993) (confidential relationship lowers evidentiary threshold for undue influence)
- Hildreth Consulting Engineers, P.C. v. Larry E. Knight, Inc., 801 A.2d 967 (D.C. 2002) (appellate deference to plausible bench findings)
- Real Estate Escrow, Inc. v. Fitzgerald, 846 A.2d 289 (D.C. 2004) (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party)
- Rosendorf v. Toomey, 349 A.2d 694 (D.C. 1975) (review of Auditor-Master recommendations for abuse of discretion)
- Jones v. United States, 828 A.2d 169 (D.C. 2003) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- In re Estate of Elkins, 692 A.2d 910 (D.C. 1997) (review limited to whether auditor’s report was supported by the facts)