Estate of Lakatosh

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
441 Pa. Super. 133, 656 A.2d 1378 (1995)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A will contestant can shift the burden of proof to the will's proponent to disprove undue influence by establishing, through clear and convincing evidence, that: 1) a confidential relationship existed between the testator and the proponent; 2) the proponent received the bulk of the estate; and 3) the testator's intellect was weakened.

Facts:

In March 1988, Roger Jacobs met Rose Lakatosh, an elderly woman in her seventies with whom he had no prior relationship.
Jacobs began performing odd jobs for Lakatosh, visiting her daily and becoming her primary confidant and assistant in both personal and financial matters.
Jacobs suggested that Lakatosh execute a power of attorney, and on November 11, 1988, Lakatosh executed documents prepared by Jacobs's cousin, an attorney, naming Jacobs as her attorney-in-fact.
On that same day, November 11, 1988, Lakatosh also executed a new will leaving her entire estate, valued at over $268,000, to Jacobs, with the exception of a $1,000 gift to her church.
Three days after the will's execution, Lakatosh's attorney (Jacobs's cousin) prepared a petition to have Lakatosh evaluated for competency, citing her inability to remember things and grasp the value of her assets.
Between September 1988 and June 1990, Jacobs used his power of attorney to transfer $128,565.29 of Lakatosh's assets to himself or for the benefit of his friends.
By June 1990, Lakatosh was discovered to be living in squalor and filth with numerous unpaid household bills.
On June 18, 1990, Lakatosh executed a document revoking the power of attorney she had granted to Jacobs.

Procedural Posture:

The Guardian of Rose Lakatosh's Estate, Donald F. Spry, II, filed a petition against Roger Jacobs in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County for an accounting and the imposition of a constructive trust.
Spry subsequently filed a petition in the same court to revoke Lakatosh's November 11, 1988 will on the grounds of undue influence.
Following a non-jury trial, the trial court ordered that a constructive trust be imposed on Jacobs and revoked the will.
Jacobs filed post-trial exceptions to the trial court's order.
The trial court denied Jacobs's post-trial exceptions.
Jacobs, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a will contestant successfully shift the burden of proof to the proponent to disprove undue influence by presenting clear and convincing evidence that a confidential relationship existed, the proponent received the bulk of the estate, and the decedent suffered from a weakened intellect at the time the will was executed?

Opinions:

Majority - Cirillo, Judge

Yes. A will contestant successfully shifts the burden of proof to the proponent to disprove undue influence where there is clear and convincing evidence of a confidential relationship, the proponent's receipt of the bulk of the estate, and the decedent's weakened intellect. The court found that all three elements of the test were met. First, a confidential relationship was clearly established by Lakatosh's dependence on Jacobs and, most definitively, by her granting him power of attorney over her entire life's savings. Second, Jacobs was to receive nearly all of Lakatosh's estate, which unquestionably constitutes the 'bulk' of the estate. Third, evidence of Lakatosh's 'weakened intellect,' which need not rise to the level of testamentary incapacity, was ample. This evidence included Jacobs's own testimony about her forgetfulness, her attorney's contemporaneous concerns about her competency, an audio recording of the will execution revealing her distraction and delusional statements, and the state of squalor in which she was living. Because the contestant proved these three elements, the burden shifted to Jacobs to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was no undue influence, a burden he failed to meet.

Analysis:

This case provides a clear application of the well-established three-part test for shifting the burden of proof in undue influence claims in Pennsylvania. It emphasizes that granting a power of attorney is one of the strongest indicators of a confidential relationship. The court's analysis distinguishes the 'weakened intellect' standard from the higher bar of 'testamentary incapacity,' clarifying that a testator can be susceptible to undue influence even if they technically have the capacity to execute a will. This decision reinforces the judiciary's role in protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation by fiduciaries and makes it significantly more difficult for a person in a position of trust to benefit from a will made by a testator of questionable mental fortitude.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Estate of Lakatosh (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"