In re Estate of Sharis
Undisclosed (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a fiduciary benefits from a will that they were instrumental in creating for their principal, the burden shifts to the fiduciary to prove that the transaction was fair and that the principal was fully informed and acted voluntarily, a burden that is not met where the principal lacked the advice of independent legal counsel and the transaction was conducted in secret.
Facts:
- Alice R. Sharis was an elderly woman with a seventh-grade education who had three daughters and numerous grandchildren.
- In November 2003, her grandson, Richard Spinelli, moved into her home and lived there without making financial contributions.
- Between 2006 and 2008, Spinelli gained control of his grandparents' checking account, signing 119 checks in his grandfather's name.
- On June 30, 2007, Alice signed a durable power of attorney, prepared by Spinelli, which granted him broad powers and took effect immediately.
- In 2008, Spinelli contacted an attorney to draft a will for Alice. The attorney never met Alice in person, speaking with her only for two brief phone calls, while the drafting associate communicated exclusively with Spinelli via email.
- On July 23, 2008, Spinelli took Alice to her husband's nursing home, where she executed the will, which left Spinelli her house, its contents, and all her stocks and securities, while leaving only her bank accounts to her three daughters.
- Following the will's execution, Spinelli transferred $71,450 from the checking account bequeathed to the daughters into a separate trust account he controlled.
- Spinelli did not inform any other family members about the existence of the power of attorney or the will.
Procedural Posture:
- One of Alice R. Sharis's daughters, Florence, contested Alice's will in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court.
- Florence challenged the will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the proponent, Richard Spinelli.
- The Probate and Family Court judge found in favor of Florence, disallowing the will on both grounds.
- Richard Spinelli, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
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's proponent, who is a fiduciary to the testator and a primary beneficiary, overcome the presumption of undue influence when he procured the will under secretive circumstances and the testator lacked meaningful, independent legal counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
No. The proponent of the will did not overcome the presumption of undue influence. A fiduciary who benefits from a transaction with the person for whom he is a fiduciary bears the burden of establishing that the transaction did not violate his obligations. Spinelli failed to meet this burden because the evidence demonstrated that Alice lacked the advice of independent legal counsel; the estate planning was conducted in secrecy; Alice was susceptible to influence due to her age and lack of financial sophistication; and the will made an unnatural disposition of her property. The attorney who drafted the will was selected by Spinelli, never met with Alice in person, and the drafting associate communicated only with Spinelli. This minimal contact did not constitute independent legal advice sufficient to prove the transaction was fair and that Alice acted with full knowledge and intent.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high level of scrutiny courts apply to transactions where a fiduciary benefits from a principal's will. The decision clarifies that the 'independent legal counsel' defense against an undue influence claim requires substantive, direct, and meaningful consultation between the testator and the attorney, not merely perfunctory contact arranged by the benefiting fiduciary. The court's willingness to find undue influence based on a totality of circumstantial evidence—such as secrecy, the testator's vulnerability, and the fiduciary's control over finances—sets a strong precedent. It serves as a warning that fiduciaries must take affirmative steps to create a record of transparency and voluntariness to overcome the presumption of impropriety.
Unlock the full brief for In re Estate of Sharis