The Wills Of Urban

The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the rejection of a challenge to the will of a decedent and admitted the latest executed will into probate

We conclude that the burden of showing undue influence remains with the objector where, as here, a fiduciary holding a power of attorney does not intrude on the attorney-client relationship with an estate attorney that yields the will. With that understanding, we conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the 2016 will, which was produced by independent legal counsel, was the result of undue influence. We further conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact whether Urban possessed testamentary capacity when he signed the 2016 will.

The relationship

In the 1990s, Finnegan moved to Naples, Florida with her parents. Shortly thereafter, she was introduced to Urban, at the time in his mid-seventies. For nearly twenty years, Urban lived in a guest house behind Finnegan’s parents’ home during the winter months and spent the rest of the year in Massachusetts.

For many years, Finnegan maintained a close relationship with Urban, who would die without a surviving spouse, descendants, siblings, or siblings’ descendants. Urban frequently ate meals with the Finnegans and went to classical music concerts with Finnegan’s parents. Urban regularly went to church with the Finnegans and joined Finnegan’s uncle for Christmas dinner.

The wills

Urban, his close friend, Dr. Geoff Emerson, and Attorney Daniel Singleton were all members of the Cohasset Golf Club. In 2012, while Dr. Emerson was present, Urban expressed to Attorney Singleton that he “needed to make a will.” Attorney Singleton made an appointment to meet with Urban…

Between 2013 and 2016, Urban executed four wills, all of which were drafted by Attorney Singleton, provided for multiple beneficiaries (including [challenger] Finnegan and her parents and sister), and left “the rest and residue to the John P. Urban Scholarship Fund.” Significantly, unlike the 2015 and 2016 wills, which listed eighteen and seventeen beneficiaries, respectively, the 2016 agreement left Urban’s entire estate to a sole beneficiary, Finnegan. The uncontradicted evidence, however, established that Urban “was extremely proud of his idea to establish the Scholarship Fund,” that “he was happy to give money to Mount Hermon and Middlebury College,” and that “[he] was a very social person” who had several close friends.

Finnegan, by contrast, was one of Urban’s many friends and had visited him in Massachusetts only once or twice before Finnegan correctly does not dispute the other elements of undue influence. presenting him with the agreement. Even when Urban was living part-time in Florida, Finnegan complained to her attorney about Urban’s refusal to give her money and his “‘control games’ [that she] really can barely tolerate these days.” Although “the law respects the choices of the competent testator” and “does not overrule them for reasons of questionable wisdom or social utility,” Maimonides Sch., 71 Mass. App. Ct. at 256, absent any evidence of a falling out with the other potential beneficiaries, the 2016 agreement constitutes an unnatural disposition.

Update: Thanks to David Alan Kluft for the correct court. (Mike Frisch)