2014 Ohio 2709
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Dolores (Delores) E. Naimy executed a trust and powers of attorney; James A. Spisak was named successor trustee and held a power of attorney (James J. Spisak was alternate trustee/alternate agent).
- Naimy moved to Ohio in 2004, had ongoing contact and assistance from the Spisaks, and continued to manage her affairs until her death in November 2011.
- Attorney James R. Helms prepared the original trust and subsequent amendments; changes in 2006 and a 2009 amendment (which added a no-contest clause) were requested in writing by James A. Spisak but signed and confirmed to Helms by Naimy.
- Appellants (siblings and nieces/nephews) challenged the validity of the 2009 amendment and alleged undue influence and breaches of fiduciary duty by the Spisaks; appellees counterclaimed for a declaration that the 2009 amendment (including the no-contest clause) was valid.
- The probate court’s magistrate granted summary judgment for the Spisaks, validating the 2009 amendment and enforcing the no-contest provision; the trial court adopted that decision and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Undue influence over trust amendments | Naimy was susceptible, feared being left alone, and was unduly influenced by the Spisaks | No evidence Naimy was susceptible; she was strong-minded and confirmed changes to counsel herself | No genuine issue; presumption of validity stands, undue influence not shown |
| Breach of fiduciary duty / scope of POA and joint accounts | Longstanding POA and joint accounts created a presumption of undue influence and suspicious transactions | POA was used only to consult; neither Spisak improperly accessed funds; presumption rebutted by evidence | Summary judgment: defendants rebutted presumption; no breach shown |
| Validity/enforceability of 2009 amendment and no-contest clause | Amendment drafted by Spisak and increased his share; no-contest clause was a device to block challenges | Attorney confirmed amendments with Naimy; no-contest clauses are valid under Ohio law | 2009 amendment and no-contest clause valid and enforceable |
| Admissibility of hearsay statements by decedent to prove fear of appellees | Plaintiffs rely on out-of-court statements attributed to Naimy to show fear/susceptibility | Those statements are inadmissible under Evid.R. 804(B)(5) when offered by adverse party; Spisak represents estate | Court excluded those statements for plaintiff’s case; they could not create a triable issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Krischbaum v. Dillon, 58 Ohio St.3d 58 (Ohio 1991) (burden and standards for proving undue influence)
- West v. Henry, 173 Ohio St. 498 (Ohio 1961) (elements and presumption against undue influence when will is probated)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for summary judgment and genuine issue of material fact)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Stone v. Davis, 66 Ohio St.2d 74 (Ohio 1981) (fiduciary nature of power of attorney relationship)
- Testa v. Roberts, 44 Ohio App.3d 161 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988) (decedent-statement hearsay exception is limited to rebuttal by party representing decedent)