990 N.E.2d 98
Mass. App. Ct.2013Background
- Spinelli appeals a Probate and Family Court ruling disallowing Alice R. Sharis's will on lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.
- Spinelli was Alice and Peter’s fiduciary under a broad durable power of attorney and controlled their finances.
- Spinelli signed Peter’s name to 119 checks between 2006 and 2008 and managed funds for the couple.
- Alice executed a durable power of attorney in June 2007, drafted by Spinelli, with broad powers and minimal disclosure to family.
- In 2008 Spinelli arranged for a will draft; the drafting attorney had only remote contact with Spinelli and never met Alice in person.
- The will, executed July 23, 2008 at a nursing home, largely favored Spinelli if Peter predeceased; otherwise assets were split among Peter, Alice’s daughters, and Spinelli.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does fiduciary status impose burden on Spinelli? | Spinelli bears burden to show the will was not product of undue influence. | Independent counsel or other factors may negate undue influence, shifting burden; she had independent advice? not here. | Yes, Spinelli bears burden; the will was a product of undue influence. |
| Did lack of independent counsel taint the will? | Independent counsel would negate undue influence; lack of counsel supports undue influence. | Independent counsel is not required for validity if other safeguards exist. | Lack of independent counsel supported finding of undue influence. |
| Was secrecy around the will probative of undue influence? | Spinelli kept the existence of the will confidential, undermining voluntariness. | Secrecy alone is not determinative without other proof. | Secrecy contributed to inference of undue influence and lack of informed consent. |
| Was Alice susceptible to undue influence given age and education? | Advanced age, limited education, and Spinelli’s control show susceptibility. | Susceptibility alone does not establish undue influence. | Susceptibility, combined with opportunity and circumstantial evidence, supported undue influence. |
| Is the evidence sufficient to prove undue influence absent direct wrongdoing? | Circumstantial evidence suffices to show undue influence by fiduciary. | Need more direct acts of influence; no clear misappropriation found. | Evidence reasonably supports undue influence despite lack of direct acts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of the Estate of Moretti, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 642 (2007) (fiduciary burden to show fairness when a fiduciary benefits from the transaction)
- Germain v. Girard, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 409 (2008) (burden shifting in fiduciary influencing testamentary dispositions)
- Cleary v. Cleary, 427 Mass. 286 (1998) (burden on fiduciary to prove the transaction was fair and fully informed)
- O’Rourke v. Hunter, 446 Mass. 814 (2006) (elements of undue influence; fiduciary in a position to influence testator)
- Neill v. Brackett, 234 Mass. 367 (1920) (undue influence includes coercion that subverts sound judgment)
- Doggett v. Morse, 299 Mass. 383 (1938) (circumstantial evidence can establish undue influence; close fiduciary relationship matters)
- Rempelakis v. Russell, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 557 (2006) (secrecy and disclosure issues in estate planning weigh on credibility)
- Foley v. Philbrook, 300 Mass. 418 (1938) (attorney review and independent advice considerations in will execution)