A Sonoma County bank overseeing
the trust of a wealthy Kentfield divorcee who left a large chunk of her $8.5
million estate to her gardener and other non-family members will be allowed to
dip into the fund to defend challenges from the woman's daughter. That's the
published opinion of the state Court of Appeals in a decision that upholds
parental rights to bequeath their money to anyone they choose. In the case,
Santa Rosa-based Exchange Bank was sued by Susan Doolittle of San Francisco,
who alleges her mother was manipulated into giving a quarter of her estate to
the gardener, Juan Ramon Amador of San Rafael. She argued payments to the bank's
lawyers must be stopped until she has a chance to prove allegations of elder
financial abuse.
The Press Democrat in Santa
Rosa, CA says that a three-judge panel rejected a daughter's argument against
her mother's leaving a large sum to her gardener, holding that there wasn't a
legal basis for halting payments of bank lawyer fees. Without ruling on the
merits of her elder abuse claims, the Court of Appeals ordered that the mother's
written instructions to defend her trust must be carried out.
"If a parent truly wants to leave something to someone who is
not their natural heir, they can provide for the defense of that gift in the
event the heirs attack it," Santa Rosa attorney Lewis Warren told the
paper in its article, "Big legal fight after Kentfield woman
leaves part of $8.5M estate to gardener." Warren represents the bank.
Doolittle is suing the gardener and Exchange Bank, claiming that her
mother, Constance Doolittle, was suffering dementia when she hired Amador in
2004 to maintain her landscaping. In the lawsuit, the daughter says that he
tricked Constance into thinking he had affections for her and convinced her to
add him to her will, as well as to spend tens of thousands of dollars investing
in coffee plantations in his home country of Nicaragua. If the trust is carried
out, the gardener will get about $3 million.
Constance decreased the inheritances of her two daughters to
$500,000 each and made Exchange Bank her trustee. The daughters were estranged
from their mother, and Constance envisioned attacks on her competence, so she
had herself examined by a psychologist. That doctor determined she had
sufficient mental capacity to make financial decisions, and she had signed
documents from an estate planning attorney who confirmed her decisions were not
the product of fraud.
She died in February 2014, and her daughter sued a few months
later.
"Connie obviously anticipated the possibility of a challenge
after her death and there is no logical reason why she would have wanted her
representatives to be compensated less generously," than before she died,
the judge wrote.
That was super smart, and something you should discuss with a
qualified estate planning attorney.
No comments:
Post a Comment