Pernicious, Perfidious, Insidious = Tortious

FL
Foley & Lardner

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.
Although other states have increasingly recognized the tort of intentional interference with an inheritance, New Jersey has been slow to do so.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Reproduced with permission of Trusts & Estates magazine (March 2007).

Although other states have increasingly recognized the tort of intentional interference with an inheritance, New Jersey has been slow to do so. Many practitioners prefer to bring a tort action rather than a straight undue influence claim because of the availability of punitive damages, often in the form of attorneys' fees. But a New Jersey Superior Court seems to have found a new approach. It has allowed the shifting of attorneys' fees in an undue influence case, Blumeling v. Stalker, 2006 WL 721837 (N.J. Super. March 20, 2006.)

Gladys Blumeling owned a home in Bergenfield, N.J., from 1939 until January of 2004. Her grandson, Jon Stalker, lived with her for a time. In January of 2004, Gladys, then 91-years-old, deeded her property to Jon and executed a will naming him as executor and primary beneficiary. She also signed a power of attorney designating Jon as her agent. Shortly thereafter, Jon died.

In July of 2004, Gladys was judicially declared incapacitated. Her son, Charles, was appointed as guardian of her person and estate. Charles brought legal action against Norman Stalker, Jon's father, as administrator of Jon's estate. Charles' complaint alleged that Jon had committed undue influence upon Gladys and improperly induced her to execute the deed and will. Charles' complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees. Charles wanted the house given back to Gladys.

Norman defended against the action, claiming that Gladys had deeded the property to Jon and included him in her will because of the excellent care and dedication he'd shown her. One of the items introduced at the trial was a videotape of Gladys' execution of the documents. But apparently that tape was damning.

The lower court declared that the tape showed Jon to be the "impresario" of a "charade" to deprive Gladys of her primary asset (her home) and that Gladys was not competent to execute the deed or will. Accordingly, the trial court invalidated both deed and will, having found that they did result from undue influence.

On July 29, 2005, Charles filed a complaint seeking attorneys' fees and costs incurred to prosecute the guardianship action and to set aside the deed and will. Norman requested summary judgment. Charles filed a cross motion for summary judgment.

The court's analysis of the attorneys' fees issue began by stating the general rule that New Jersey has a strong public policy against shifting attorneys' fees, thus parties usually must bear their own fees and costs (the so-called "American Rule.") The court noted an exception to the American Rule: when a plaintiff has been forced by the wrongful conduct of a tortfeasor to institute litigation against a third party.

The court then engaged in a lengthy discussion of a 2003 New Jersey case: In re Niles, 176 N.J. 282, 823 A.2d 1 (2003).

Niles was an undue influence case involving Laura Niles. Laura's sister-in-law, Serena Bono, and Serena's son, Salvatore, unduly influenced Laura to execute various living trusts heavily favoring them. The trusts also named Salvatore as trustee, allowing Salvatore and Serena to embark on what the court described as a 16-month "looting spree" of Laura's trust estate. The lower court found a clear case of undue influence, declared the trusts to be void and said there was an exception to the American Rule where an executor or trustee has committed undue influence. In other words, it held that when a fiduciary commits undue influence, reasonable fees and costs may be assessed against that fiduciary. The Niles court focused on the "‘special status' of the undue influence tort" as an "egregious intentional tort that...establishes a basis for punitive damages."

The Blumeling court, in deciding to award attorneys' fees, refined the Niles decision, stating that the fiduciary status (or lack thereof) of one who commits undue influence is not a necessary condition in determining whether attorneys' fees should be shifted, and the focus should be on the undue influence itself. The Blumeling court used several "ious" adjectives to describe undue influence — including "pernicious," "perfidious" and "insidious" — that would justify fee shifting in such cases.

The court also rejected Norman's argument that Jon did not receive a significant benefit from his undue influence (a mere $250,000, while the wrongdoers in Niles received more than $1 million). As in fraud cases, the court said, there are no meaningful gradations of undue influence.

Moreover, the Blumeling court rejected Norman's efforts to distinguish the case at bar from Niles because Niles involved "strangers organizing and plotting" to swindle the victim, whereas Blumeling involved a grandson taking care of his grandmother. The court found that the relationship between the person committing undue influence and the victim is not pivotal.

So, what are the "take aways" from this case? Several — and they're pretty interesting.

  • Many states recognize a presumption of fraud when a fiduciary benefits at the expense of his principal. The handmaiden of fraud is, of course, punitive damages. The Blumeling court starts from that model, then appears to minimize the relationship as part of the required elements, although it should be noted that Jon held a power of attorney for his grandmother.
  • Undue influence is now a tort in New Jersey and allows at least for the shifting of fees, if not outright punitive damages. It remains to be seen whether New Jersey extends this holding to other forms of inheritance such as trusts and life insurance which are generally covered by tortious interference.
  • New Jersey is now yet another forum that allows the validity of a will to be adjudicated while the testator is still alive, although in this case, the testator was legally incompetent.
  • Finally, Jon's dad learned the hard way that videotape is no panacea. Be warned: Will proponents are often better off without such evidence when a testator is likely to look frail or confused.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More