Renee Halpecka died in 2005 when she was 84 years old. Before her death, Renee had been very ill for many years and was cared for by her husband. After her husband died in 2001, Rosemary Walsh, a neighbor, became Renee’s caretaker and served as her agent under a financial power of attorney and medical proxy. Walsh managed Renee’s financial affairs and attended her appointments with doctors and meetings with an attorney and bank staff, among many other duties she performed for Renee. Upon her death, Renee left her estate, in equal shares, to three “friends” — Rosemary Walsh, her former power of attorney and executrix, Andrea Price, alternate executor, and Brenda Hedrick. However, most of the estate consisted of non-probate assets which passed to Walsh outside of the decedent’s will. About one year after Renee’s death, two of the three “friends”, Price and Hedrick, filed a lawsuit against Walsh and her husband.
Before trial, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that there was no fact dispute in the case, and therefore no need for a trial, and that plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment in their favor as a matter of law. The trial judge agreed and granted plaintiffs’ motion, entering a judgment in excess of $500,000 plus counsel fees against defendants and in favor of the estate. The trial judge found that Walsh had a confidential relationship with the decedent and exercised undue influence by converting probate assets into non-probate assets, which Walsh accomplished through a series of gifts and other transactions made during Renee’s life, leaving nearly all of Renee’s assets, other than her real estate, payable to Walsh on decedent’s death. The court also found that Walsh’s husband was complicit in and unjustly enriched by Walsh’s conduct. Notwithstanding the ruling, however, the court denied plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.
Defendants appealed, contending that the trial judge erred by, among other things, resolving the questions of a confidential relationship and undue influence on summary judgment, and awarding counsel fees. Plaintiffs cross-appealed, contending the denial of their claim for punitive damages was incorrect.
The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held, first, that “the evidential materials submitted on the motion for summary judgment were so one-sided as to permit a determination that plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the question of a confidential relationship…We are satisfied that the record includes clear and convincing evidence of undue influence amounting to fraud…”
Second, the court affirmed the award of counsel fees based upon the holding in In re Niles, 176 N.J. 282 (2003), as follows:
We hold that when, as in this case, an executor or trustee reaps a substantial economic or financial benefit from undue influence, the fiduciary may be assessed counsel fees incurred by plaintiffs and third parties in litigation to restore the estate’s assets to what they would have been had the undue influence not occurred.
Finally, the appeals court also affirmed the denial of punitive damages, agreeing with the trial judge that “the remedies awarded in the probate action, which included an award of counsel fees …, were adequate to address the wrong, making a punitive damage award inappropriate.”
The case is annexed here –Matter of the Estate of Halpecka
Categories
- Affordable Care Act
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Arbitration
- Attorney Ethics
- Attorneys Fees
- Beneficiary Designations
- Blog Roundup and Highlights
- Blogs and Blogging
- Care Facilities
- Caregivers
- Cemetery
- Collaborative Family Law
- Conservatorships
- Consumer Fraud
- Contempt
- Contracts
- Defamation
- Developmental Disabilities
- Discovery
- Discrimination Laws
- Doctrine of Probable Intent
- Domestic Violence
- Elder Abuse
- Elder Law
- Elective Share
- End-of-Life Decisions
- Estate Administration
- Estate Litigation
- Estate Planning
- Events
- Family Law
- Fiduciary
- Financial Exploitation of the Elderly
- Funeral
- Future of the Legal Profession
- Geriatric Care Managers
- Governmental or Public Benefit Programs
- Guardianship
- Health Issues
- Housing for the Elderly and Disabled
- In Remembrance
- Insolvent Estates
- Institutional Liens
- Insurance
- Interesting New Cases
- Intestacy
- Law Firm News
- Law Firm Videos
- Law Practice Management / Development
- Lawyers and Lawyering
- Legal Capacity or Competancy
- Legal Malpractice
- Legal Rights of the Disabled
- Liens
- Litigation
- Mediation
- Medicaid Appeals
- Medicaid Applications
- Medicaid Planning
- Annuities
- Care Contracts
- Divorce
- Estate Recovery
- Family Part Non-Dissolution Support Orders
- Gifts
- Life Estates
- Loan repayments
- MMMNA
- Promissory Notes
- Qualified Income Trusts
- Spousal Refusal
- Transfers For Reasons Other Than To Qualify For Medicaid
- Transfers to "Caregiver" Child(ren)
- Transfers to Disabled Adult Children
- Trusts
- Undue Hardship Provision
- Multiple-Party Deposit Account Act
- New Cases
- New Laws
- News Briefs
- Newsletters
- Non-Probate Assets
- Nursing Facility Litigation
- Personal Achievements and Awards
- Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Probate
- Punitive Damages
- Reconsideration
- Retirement Benefits
- Reverse Mortgages
- Section 8 Housing
- Settlement of Litigation
- Social Media
- Special Education
- Special Needs Planning
- Surrogate Decision-Making
- Taxation
- Technology
- Texting
- Top Ten
- Trials
- Trustees
- Uncategorized
- Veterans Benefits
- Web Sites and the Internet
- Webinar
- Writing Intended To Be A Will
Vanarelli & Li, LLC on Social Media