|
what possible charges can be lodged for coersion of a will? both by state
and civil suite? the state is d.c. thanks
|
| |
| |
what possible charges can be lodged for coersion of a will? both
by state
and civil suite? the state is d.c. thanks
I'm not sure there are charges if the coersion falls short of
extortion. Excessive, persistant persuasion isn't necessarilly a
crime, unless there is a local statute saying otherwise. But
anyone who would otherwise have been a beneficiary can challenge
the will as the product of undue influence and coersion.
McGyver
|
| |
| |
The description of excessive, persistent and more so at times threatening
and psychologically affecting the affect of decision making would have been
more accurate of actions transpired. The estate attorney in question of the
decedent was notified of these facts but has ignored any inquires for
unknown reasons. I'm sure the would be inheritors would be greatly
interested but needless to say concern over the seriousness of civil and
criminal charges looms greatly.
by state
I'm not sure there are charges if the coersion falls short of
extortion. Excessive, persistant persuasion isn't necessarilly a
crime, unless there is a local statute saying otherwise. But
anyone who would otherwise have been a beneficiary can challenge
the will as the product of undue influence and coersion.
McGyver
|
| |
| |
"medusa" <h.hernandez22@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<B_z9d.38$Rp4.35@trnddc01>...
The description of excessive, persistent and more so at times threatening
and psychologically affecting the affect of decision making would have been
more accurate of actions transpired. The estate attorney in question of the
decedent was notified of these facts but has ignored any inquires for
unknown reasons. I'm sure the would be inheritors would be greatly
interested but needless to say concern over the seriousness of civil and
criminal charges looms greatly.
This usually goes by the name of "undue influence". The sort of
influence over a testator (a person who makes a will) that makes the
will something that isn't the testator's own. Threats or other abuse
against a person who's too vulnerable in mind and body to resist could
be a sort of undue influence.
An undue influence case is typically brought by an interested party
(usually someone who would have stood to inherit had not the will gone
against him) in the form of a will contest. The sooner such a case is
brought, the better, preferably when the question of whether to admit
the will to probate is open. Once the will is in probate, it becomes
harder to contest and more likely to stand.
The elements of undue influence vary from state to state, but some
typical ones are: a relationship of confidence between the testator
and the influencer, exercise of influence sufficient to overcome the
testator's (possibly weak) will, and a resulting will that is clearly
unnatural. Usually there is a heavy burden on the challenger to prove
undue influence, as courts are generally quite reluctant to upset a
will.
The executor or personal representative, or his attorney, is not your
friend in these matters. If you're not an interested party, he is free
to ignore you. If you are contemplating a will contest, he is going to
be your opponent.
If you feel it is your duty to bring this (alleged) wrongdoing to
light, but you are not yourself an interested party, one course of
action is to locate descendants or other heirs who might have been
done wrong, then see if you can interest them in mounting a will
contest. The will is public record once it's been filed, so you can
help yourself to a copy and get going on that.
Look up a cleverly fictionalized case, "Lucky Pierre"
(http://www.fosterlawyer.com/Lucky_Pierre.jsp), for a discussion in
which many issues surrounding undue influence are treated.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
Well... I am very frustrated at this point.....it seems harder to undo this
wrong than it was to do! I informed one of the family members but they
still have not done anything perhaps for fear of losing what little
inheritance they did get as the will stipulates they will lose should they
contest the will.
So they question stands if I can do something before probate period is over
for contesting...of course complaining to the bar association may not be
enough . what can i do??
"medusa" <h.hernandez22@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<B_z9d.38$Rp4.35@trnddc01>...
The description of excessive, persistent and more so at times
threatening
and psychologically affecting the affect of decision making would have
been
more accurate of actions transpired. The estate attorney in question of
the
decedent was notified of these facts but has ignored any inquires for
unknown reasons. I'm sure the would be inheritors would be greatly
interested but needless to say concern over the seriousness of civil and
criminal charges looms greatly.
This usually goes by the name of "undue influence". The sort of
influence over a testator (a person who makes a will) that makes the
will something that isn't the testator's own. Threats or other abuse
against a person who's too vulnerable in mind and body to resist could
be a sort of undue influence.
An undue influence case is typically brought by an interested party
(usually someone who would have stood to inherit had not the will gone
against him) in the form of a will contest. The sooner such a case is
brought, the better, preferably when the question of whether to admit
the will to probate is open. Once the will is in probate, it becomes
harder to contest and more likely to stand.
The elements of undue influence vary from state to state, but some
typical ones are: a relationship of confidence between the testator
and the influencer, exercise of influence sufficient to overcome the
testator's (possibly weak) will, and a resulting will that is clearly
unnatural. Usually there is a heavy burden on the challenger to prove
undue influence, as courts are generally quite reluctant to upset a
will.
The executor or personal representative, or his attorney, is not your
friend in these matters. If you're not an interested party, he is free
to ignore you. If you are contemplating a will contest, he is going to
be your opponent.
If you feel it is your duty to bring this (alleged) wrongdoing to
light, but you are not yourself an interested party, one course of
action is to locate descendants or other heirs who might have been
done wrong, then see if you can interest them in mounting a will
contest. The will is public record once it's been filed, so you can
help yourself to a copy and get going on that.
Look up a cleverly fictionalized case, "Lucky Pierre"
(http://www.fosterlawyer.com/Lucky_Pierre.jsp), for a discussion in
which many issues surrounding undue influence are treated.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 03:34:17 GMT, "hcd" <h.hernandez22@verizon.net>
wrote:
Well... I am very frustrated at this point.....it seems harder to undo this
wrong than it was to do! I informed one of the family members but they
still have not done anything perhaps for fear of losing what little
inheritance they did get as the will stipulates they will lose should they
contest the will.
So they question stands if I can do something before probate period is over
for contesting...of course complaining to the bar association may not be
enough . what can i do??
What sort of complaint would you take to the Bar Association? That the
lawyer is trying to get his client's will through probate? That's his
duty, not a dereliction of it.
Now if you believe the lawyer conspired in, or connived at, the undue
influence scheme, a complaint could be in order. But just because he
won't listen to your theory, that means nothing.
Either to contest the will or to make a complaint stick, you will need
strong proof that there was undue influence. What is convincing to you
may convince nobody else when both sides are argued in court. And if
you do not have proof that will persuade a court, you will get
nowhere.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
It was my understanding that it was the estate attorney's indeed any
lawyers duty to uphold the legal correctness of the law. His job is indeed
to proceed to process the will as he knows it but it is incumbent upon him
also to report any shady happenings to the court and investigate should such
a situation come to light and have the true heirs apparent collect their
estate as they would have had we not coerced her to do a will favorable to
us. I confessed this knowledge months ago without so much as a phone call
of inquiry. To quote him he doesn't care who inherits so it seems as if he
merely doesn't want to put the effort out.
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 03:34:17 GMT, "hcd" <h.hernandez22@verizon.net>
wrote:
What sort of complaint would you take to the Bar Association? That the
lawyer is trying to get his client's will through probate? That's his
duty, not a dereliction of it.
Now if you believe the lawyer conspired in, or connived at, the undue
influence scheme, a complaint could be in order. But just because he
won't listen to your theory, that means nothing.
Either to contest the will or to make a complaint stick, you will need
strong proof that there was undue influence. What is convincing to you
may convince nobody else when both sides are argued in court. And if
you do not have proof that will persuade a court, you will get
nowhere.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
"medusa" <h.hernandez22@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<wzbbd.586$RM5.279@trnddc04>...
It was my understanding that it was the estate attorney's indeed any
lawyers duty to uphold the legal correctness of the law. His job is indeed
to proceed to process the will as he knows it but it is incumbent upon him
also to report any shady happenings to the court and investigate should such
a situation come to light and have the true heirs apparent collect their
estate as they would have had we not coerced her to do a will favorable to
us. I confessed this knowledge months ago without so much as a phone call
of inquiry. To quote him he doesn't care who inherits so it seems as if he
merely doesn't want to put the effort out.
The mere suspicion of shadiness doesn't compel him to act. Nothing you
have written here proves any element of undue influence, and you
haven't given enough for anyone to determine whether there's even
reasonable suspicion. If you had solid proof of undue influence *and*
were an interested party in the case, you might have some standing,
but it doesn't appear that you have either.
His duty is to carry out the will as written unless it can be proven
that the will was void for a reason such as undue influence. He has
this duty to the heirs who will benefit by the will. If he goes off on
a tangent chasing somebody's suspicion of undue influence, he is
breaching his duty to the heirs under the will, and then they will
have a very good complaint.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
if he does not bother to speak to me to determine the "shadiness" of the
events then how can he make a determination merely by my general
confession.? Does inquiry fall in the category of above and beyond the
scope of minimal responsibilities.? In addition lets not forget the fact
that the estate attorney has an antagonizing relationship with myself so I'm
the last one he wants to converse with but I'm the only other person besides
the heir apparent that knows the truth!
"medusa" <h.hernandez22@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<wzbbd.586$RM5.279@trnddc04>...
It was my understanding that it was the estate attorney's indeed any
lawyers duty to uphold the legal correctness of the law. His job is
indeed
to proceed to process the will as he knows it but it is incumbent upon
him
also to report any shady happenings to the court and investigate should
such
a situation come to light and have the true heirs apparent collect their
estate as they would have had we not coerced her to do a will favorable
to
us. I confessed this knowledge months ago without so much as a phone
call
of inquiry. To quote him he doesn't care who inherits so it seems as if
he
merely doesn't want to put the effort out.
The mere suspicion of shadiness doesn't compel him to act. Nothing you
have written here proves any element of undue influence, and you
haven't given enough for anyone to determine whether there's even
reasonable suspicion. If you had solid proof of undue influence *and*
were an interested party in the case, you might have some standing,
but it doesn't appear that you have either.
His duty is to carry out the will as written unless it can be proven
that the will was void for a reason such as undue influence. He has
this duty to the heirs who will benefit by the will. If he goes off on
a tangent chasing somebody's suspicion of undue influence, he is
breaching his duty to the heirs under the will, and then they will
have a very good complaint.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
if he does not bother to speak to me to determine the "shadiness" of
the
events then how can he make a determination merely by my general
confession.? Does inquiry fall in the category of above and beyond
the
scope of minimal responsibilities.? In addition lets not forget the
fact
that the estate attorney has an antagonizing relationship with
myself so I'm
the last one he wants to converse with but I'm the only other person
besides
the heir apparent that knows the truth!
The estate's attorney has no obligation to talk to you. And no
obligation to read mail or messages from you. And no obligation to
investigate anything. And the estate has no obligation to pay the
attorney for the time spent doing any of that. If an heir or
potential heir (I guess that doesn't include you?) files in the
probate court an objection to the probate or objection to the order of
distribution, the attorney may investigate, or may simply oppose the
objection without investigation. If you want an attorney to
investigate undue influence, hire one.
McGyver
|
| |
| |
"medusa" <h.hernandez22@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<bUwbd.28$uk2.22@trnddc05>...
if he does not bother to speak to me to determine the "shadiness" of the
events then how can he make a determination merely by my general
confession.? Does inquiry fall in the category of above and beyond the
scope of minimal responsibilities.? In addition lets not forget the fact
that the estate attorney has an antagonizing relationship with myself so I'm
the last one he wants to converse with but I'm the only other person besides
the heir apparent that knows the truth!
He doesn't have to. He doesn't even have a minimal responsibility to
listen to you, much less carry out inquiries on your behalf. If he's
the executor's counsel, his obligation is to the executor. If he's the
executor himself, his obligation is to the decedent's will. He has no
obligation to somebody with no standing and a half-formed suspicion of
undue influence; indeed, he has an obligation to oppose you in the
interest of his client, who you are not.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
|
