Victory at Jury Trial on Claims of Undue Influence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Tortious Interference with an Expectancy of Inheritance

HPM congratulates attorneys Brandan J. Pratt, Esq., CFP and Arthur Vincent, Esq. for winning a 5-day jury trial in Broward County, Florida involving claims of undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with an expectancy of inheritance.  

Attorneys, Brandan J. Pratt, Esq., CFP and Arthur Vincent, Esq.  represented the Defendant in a 5-day jury trial where the Defendant was being sued by his 3 siblings.  The Father had 4 children.  After the Father’s wife passed away, his youngest son (the Defendant) moved in with the Father to assist him. After the Defendant had lived with and assisted the Father for 11 years, the Father gifted his home to his youngest son (the Defendant) by signing a Deed, which was prepared by an attorney after consultation.  The Father’s other three children (the “Plaintiffs”) found out about the gift shortly after the Deed was recorded.

With the ultimate of goal of having the Deed declared invalid, the Plaintiffs initiated guardianship proceedings over the Father.  The Plaintiffs alleged that the Father had dementia and Alzheimer’s disease and should therefore be declared to be mentally incapacitated by the court.  However, during the guardianship proceedings, the court appointed examining committee (consisting of a medical doctor, psychologist, and social worker) examined the Father and unanimously determined that the Father was completely capacitated and that no guardianship was necessary.  As a result of the findings of the examining committee, the guardianship proceedings were dismissed.  During the guardianship proceedings, the Father told his court appointed attorney that he had gifted his home to the Defendant and did not want to reverse the transaction although he knew that his other three children were upset about it.    

Shortly after the guardianship proceedings were dismissed, the Father went to the attorney who represented him in the guardianship proceedings and had a new Trust prepared.  The Trust appointed the Defendant as a co-Trustee of the Trust and named all four children as equal beneficiaries.  While the Trust was being prepared, the Father told his attorney that his home was not part of the Trust since he had already gifted it to the Defendant. 

The Father and the Defendant lived in the home together until the Father passed away, which was an additional 6 years after the Deed was signed.  After the Father passed away, the Plaintiffs sued the Defendant to revoke the Deed and for other relief.  The Plaintiffs alleged that the Deed was invalid because it was the product of undue influence exerted by their younger brother (the Defendant) over their Father.  The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant orchestrated the preparation and execution of the Deed, orchestrated the preparation and execution of the Trust, and that the Defendant diverted assets that should have been placed in the Trust for his own personal use.  The Plaintiffs claimed that the Father was suffering from dementia and Alzheimer’s disease at the time that the Father signed the Deed and was therefore highly susceptible to undue influence.  Plaintiffs also claimed that the Defendant was active in procuring the Deed since he assisted his father in finding the attorney who prepared the Deed, drove his father to the appointment where the Deed was signed, and spoke with the attorney who prepared the Deed.

After a 5-day jury trial, the jury returned a unanimous decision in favor of the Defendant on all 3 counts.  Specifically, the jury found that the Deed was not the product of undue influence, that the Defendant did not breach any fiduciary duties that he owed the Plaintiffs, and that the Defendant did not tortiously interfere with the Father’s expectation that the Plaintiffs would inherit.  The Court reserved jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees and costs against the Plaintiffs.