143 A.3d 117
Me.2016Background
- Pauline Cote made several estate changes (1995 deed of home to Donald and Priscille with life estate reserved, designation of Donald and Priscille as agents under power of attorney, 2001 will dividing estate equally among children, and payable-on-death beneficiary changes) with Attorney Mary Toole’s assistance.
- In later years Pauline suffered a stroke (2008); Priscille moved in, aided by Donald and Angela, controlled Pauline’s care and finances, and allegedly isolated her from other children.
- At death (2010) Pauline’s probate estate was largely exhausted by expenses; nonprobate assets (annuity/insurance beneficiaries and the deeded house) benefited Donald and Priscille.
- Robert sued (2013) for tortious interference with an expectancy of inheritance, claiming appellees unduly influenced Pauline and diverted or caused dissipation of assets that would have flowed to him.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Donald, Priscille, and Angela, finding Robert had prima facie evidence of a confidential relationship/undue influence but failed to produce admissible, particularized evidence showing the appellees were the "but for" cause of the loss of his expectancy.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed: confidential-relationship presumption was supported, but causation (reasonable certainty that Robert would have received the inheritance but for defendants’ conduct) lacked admissible supporting evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Robert established intentional interference via undue influence | Robert argued defendants exercised undue influence by controlling Pauline’s finances, isolating her, and steering assets to themselves or beneficiaries | Defendants argued either no undue influence or insufficient admissible evidence of undue influence | Court: Prima facie evidence of a confidential relationship existed; presumption of undue influence arose (undue-influence element satisfied) |
| Whether Robert proved causation (reasonable certainty that expectancy would have been realized but for defendants’ actions) | Robert claimed Pauline had additional assets and that defendants’ conduct caused dissipation or diversion of those assets, depriving him of his expectancy | Defendants argued lack of admissible, particularized evidence linking their actions to any loss of specific assets or to the depletion of Pauline’s estate | Court: Robert failed to present admissible, particularized evidence showing defendants were the but-for cause; summary judgment proper |
| Whether burden-shifting relieved Robert of proving remaining elements once confidential relationship shown | Robert contended the burden shift required defendants to prove transfers were entirely fair, precluding summary judgment | Defendants contended plaintiff still must adduce prima facie evidence on all elements to survive their summary-judgment motion | Court: Burden shift applied to undue-influence element only; plaintiff still had to produce prima facie evidence on causation and other elements |
| Whether affidavits presented by Robert were admissible and sufficient for summary judgment purposes | Robert relied on his and siblings’ affidavits alleging observations and beliefs about missing accounts and improper transfers | Defendants pointed to hearsay, lack of personal knowledge, vagueness, and failure to identify specific assets or transfers | Court: Affidavits were largely hearsay or lacked personal knowledge and were too vague to establish causation; inadmissible/insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrill v. Morrill, 712 A.2d 1039 (Me. 1998) (elements of tortious interference with expectancy and requirement to prove source/nature/extent of expected inheritance)
- Plimpton v. Gerrard, 668 A.2d 882 (Me. 1995) (must show reasonable certainty that bequest would have been in effect but for interference)
- Theriault v. Burnham, 2 A.3d 324 (Me. 2010) (definition and presumption framework for undue influence/confidential relationship)
- Estate of Campbell, 704 A.2d 329 (Me. 1997) (confidential-relationship facts as question of fact; family ties may support finding)
- Angell v. Hallee, 92 A.3d 1154 (Me. 2014) (summary-judgment standard; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)