Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneytrialburden of prooftrustwill

trialtestimonyburden of proofwill

Related Cases

Estate of Lakatosh, 441 Pa.Super. 133, 656 A.2d 1378

Facts

Rose K. Lakatosh, an elderly woman, developed a close relationship with Roger Jacobs, who began assisting her with various tasks and eventually became her attorney-in-fact. In November 1988, Rose executed a will leaving her estate to Roger, but shortly after, concerns about her mental capacity arose. Following her death, her guardian filed a petition to revoke the will, citing undue influence, leading to a trial where evidence suggested Roger had unlawfully converted significant assets from Rose's estate.

Rose was a woman in her early to mid seventies in March of 1988 when Roger Jacobs came into her life. Roger introduced himself to Rose by delivering his business card to her at her home in Northampton, Pennsylvania, after which he began to perform odd jobs for Rose.

Issue

Did the trial court err in finding that Rose's will, dated November 11, 1988, was an invalid testamentary disposition and subject to revocation due to undue influence?

One issue, therefore, remains for this court's review, namely, whether the trial court erred in finding that Rose's will, dated November 11, 1988, was an invalid testamentary disposition and subject to revocation.

Rule

In cases of undue influence, the burden of proof lies with the contestant to show a confidential relationship, that the influencer received the bulk of the estate, and that the testator's intellect was weakened at the time of the will's execution.

The burden of proof in cases of this type is as defined by the Supreme Court in Estate of Reichel, 484 Pa. 610, 400 A.2d 1268 (1979). The Court stated: When the proponent of a will proves that the formalities of execution have been followed, a contestant who claims that there has been undue influence has the burden of proof.

Analysis

The court determined that a confidential relationship existed between Rose and Roger, as he had gained her trust and was involved in her financial affairs. The evidence showed that Roger received the bulk of Rose's estate and that she had a weakened intellect at the time the will was executed. The burden then shifted to Roger to disprove undue influence, which he failed to do.

The trial court properly concluded that the testimony at trial indicated that a confidential relationship existed between Rose and Roger. The facts illustrate that from the time Roger came to know Rose he developed a close relationship with her which included her confiding in him about her legal problems as well as her financial affairs.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke Rose's will, concluding that Roger did not meet his burden of proving the absence of undue influence.

Consequently, we conclude that the trial court's findings rest on legally competent evidence and the trial court did not commit error or abuse its discretion in finding that Rose's will should be revoked because Roger failed to carry his burden of proving the absence of undue influence.

Who won?

The guardian of Rose K. Lakatosh prevailed in the case because the court found sufficient evidence of undue influence exerted by Roger Jacobs over Rose.

The court in Bankovich, supra, 344 Pa.Super. 520, 496 A.2d 1227, discussed the burden of proof in a case involving the allegation of undue influence.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Reid v. Estate of Sonder, 63 So.3d 7, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D611

Moss v. Axford, 246 Mich. 288, 224 N.W. 425

Matter of Bonjean’s Estate, 90 Ill.App.3d 582, 413 N.E.2d 205, 45 Ill.Dec. 872

Erickson v. Erickson, 171 Idaho 352, 521 P.3d 1089

Matter of Estate of McCoy, 844 P.2d 1131