Under Certain Circumstances, a Will Procured Through Fraud or Undue Influence May Still be Valid with Respect to Untainted Provisions

In 1994, the decedent created a will that left his entire estate to his niece. Under the terms of the will, in the event that the niece did not survive the decedent, equal shares of the decedent’s estate were to be held in a trust for the benefit of the niece’s two children. The niece died in 1995.

On December 2, 2007, the decedent was placed in a hospital. The niece’s husband visited the decedent on December 4, 2007, bringing with him legal documents, including a will he downloaded and printed online. An attorney friend of the husband’s accompanied him to the hospital. The decedent did not read the new will but did sign it. The new will that gave the husband and niece’s children the money outright, rather than in a trust, named the husband as personal representative of the decedent’s estate, and gave the husband a contingent residuary beneficiary interest. The decedent died two months after signing the will.

The decedent’s son file a petition in the Superior Court of Probate Division for appointment as personal representative of the decedent’s estate. The son claimed that no will existed and was appointed as personal representative on May 29, 2008. On June 17, 2008 the husband filed for appointment as personal representative, not knowing that the son had already done so, and was appointed on June 27, 2008. The son contested the husband’s appointment, and the court appointed a substitute representative and conducted a bench trial.

At trial, the son challenged the validity of both the 1994 and 2007 wills, claiming that the husband used fraud and undue influence to procure the decedent’s signature on the 2007 will. The trail court applied the doctrine of partial invalidity and excused the portions of the will that named the husband as administrator, residuary legatee, and contingent residuary legatee. The court submitted the amended will to probate. The son appealed.

In In re Estate of Turpin, 19 A.3d 801, (D.C. 2011), a case of first impression, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia adopted the doctrine of partially invalidity, holding that the court may excuse provisions of a will resulting from fraud and undue influence and admit the remainder of the modified will to probate. As a result, one-half of the residuary devise passed via intestacy as it was void. Additionally, the court found that the residuary devisees were tenants in common in the residuary estate.

Special thanks to William LaPiana (Professor of Law, New York Law School) for bringing this case to my attention.