Fielding v. Tullos, No. 09-17-00203-CV, 2018 WL 4138971 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug. 30, 2018, no pet.).
Decedent named Caregiver as a beneficiary on
several non-probate accounts. After Decedent’s death, Independent
Executor claimed that Decedent lacked the capacity to name Caregiver as
the beneficiary of these accounts and that if Decedent did have
capacity, he was subject to Caregiver’s undue influence. The trial court
granted a Caregiver’s request for a summary judgment finding that
although Caregiver was in a position to exercise undue influence, there
was no evidence that she did. In addition, the court held that a true
fiduciary relationship did not exist between Decedent and Caregiver
which would shift the burden of proof on Caregiver to show lack of undue
influence. Independent Executor appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. The court reviewed
the evidence and concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact.
The record had “no indication of force, intimidation, duress, persistent
requests or demands, or deceit by” Caregiver. Caregiver had assisted
Decedent and his predeceased wife for seventeen years. In the later
years of Decedent’s life, Caregiver worked for Decedent seven days a
week. They had a close relationship. For example, Decedent would spend
holidays with Caregiver’s family instead of his distant relatives
(Decedent had no children). An employee of the one of the institutions
holding a non-probate asset testified that she had never seen Caregiver
exert any influence over Decedent or Decedent had any of the traits of a
vulnerable client.
Moral: Mere opportunity to exert undue
influence is insufficient to place the existence of undue influence into
question. In this case, distant relatives (nieces and nephews) were
upset that a long-time caregiver received over $1.5 million. To reduce
the chance of litigation, the estate attorney should take steps during
the planning process to prevent contests based on undue influence or
lack of capacity.