102 Mass. App. Ct. 284
Mass. App. Ct.2023Background:
- Decedent John P. Urban, who suffered from dementia later in life, executed a series of wills (2013, 2014, 2015) drafted by Attorney Daniel Singleton; Dr. Geoff Emerson (friend) later served as Urban's power of attorney and trustee of a scholarship fund named in the wills.
- On May 3, 2016, Attorney Singleton prepared and Urban executed a 2016 will (Singleton met with Urban privately; two disinterested witnesses and a caregiver attested Urban was alert and the witnesses signed affidavits confirming due execution).
- In September 2016, Michelle Finnegan presented Urban a signed "Agreement by Parties" that named her exclusive beneficiary and personal representative and purported to revoke prior wills; the document was witnessed by two acquaintances of Finnegan.
- Urban died in February 2019; Singleton petitioned to probate the 2016 will, and Finnegan filed a competing petition to probate the 2016 agreement and asserted claims against the estate.
- The John P. Urban Scholarship Fund moved for summary judgment; the Probate judge admitted the 2016 will and dismissed Finnegan's petition as to the 2016 agreement; Finnegan appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Finnegan) | Defendant's Argument (Will proponents / Scholarship Fund) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden-shifting for undue influence where POA is a beneficiary | Dr. Emerson's role as POA and beneficiary shifts burden to Emerson/scholarship fund to prove absence of undue influence | Emerson did not intrude on the attorney-client relationship; independent counsel prepared the will, so burden remains with objector | No intrusion shown; burden stayed with Finnegan; no triable issue of undue influence as to the 2016 will |
| Whether the 2016 agreement was an unnatural disposition / product of undue influence | The agreement was valid and not procured by undue influence (Finnegan disputes only unnatural disposition) | The agreement made Finnegan sole beneficiary contrary to prior multi-beneficiary pattern and was procured through improper means | Agreement constituted an unnatural disposition and, on summary judgment record, was procured by undue influence; petition dismissed |
| Testamentary capacity at execution of 2016 will | Urban lacked capacity due to dementia and medical records showing confusion | Attorney, caregiver, and attesting witnesses observed Urban alert and focused on May 3, 2016; attorney assessed capacity | No genuine factual dispute; evidence supports that Urban had testamentary capacity when he signed the 2016 will |
| Whether Urban actually signed the 2016 will | Nursing-home records show no record of him leaving the facility that day, so signature is disputed | Not all patient outings were documented; attorney, witnesses, and caregiver attest Urban left and signed | No genuine dispute of fact; proponent's evidence that Urban signed is sufficient |
| Admissibility of transcribed, one-sided interview of Barbara Cannon | The transcript is equivalent to an affidavit and should be considered in opposition to summary judgment | The transcript was a de facto deposition taken without notice, contained hearsay and leading questions, and opposing counsel had no chance to cross-examine | Trial judge did not abuse discretion in striking the transcript from the summary-judgment record |
Key Cases Cited
- Maimonides Sch. v. Coles, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 240 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008) (elements for undue influence in will contests)
- O'Rourke v. Hunter, 446 Mass. 814 (Mass. 2006) (summary judgment standards and undue influence framework)
- Germain v. Girard, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 409 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008) (burden ordinarily on will contestant to prove undue influence)
- Cleary v. Cleary, 427 Mass. 286 (Mass. 1998) (fiduciary who benefits bears burden when transaction involves the fiduciary; independent counsel can satisfy burden)
- Matter of the Estate of Moretti, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 642 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007) (when fiduciary intrudes into attorney–client relationship burden shifts)
- Rempelakis v. Russell, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 557 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006) (burden shifts only where fiduciary actually took part in the transaction)
- Matter of the Estate of Sharis, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 839 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013) (fiduciary who arranges drafting and execution may lack independent counsel and bears burden)
- Paine v. Sullivan, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 811 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011) (testamentary capacity and delusion standards)
- Matter of the Estate of Rosen, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 793 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014) (testamentary capacity is question of fact; timing matters)
- Matter of the Estate of Galatis, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 273 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015) (will proponent's burden to prove capacity)
- Haddad v. Haddad, 99 Mass. App. Ct. 59 (Mass. App. Ct. 2021) (presumption of capacity and showing required to rebut it)
- Anselmo v. Reback, 400 Mass. 865 (Mass. 1987) (limits on admission of one-party deposition absent cross-examination)
- Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706 (Mass. 1991) (materials appropriate to oppose or support summary judgment include depositions and affidavits)