Elder Abuse?

[dmtrust]

A son-in-law helped his mother-in-law open an investment account with a notable company.

The same day, she made the son-in-law the sole beneficiary of all her assets and also authorized him to have full authority over her money.

six months later, he helped her to draw up a new Will and Trust.

Six days later, she suddenly passed away.

Though he had helped her draw up the new Will and Trust, he hadn't filed it with the investment company.

Therefore he had to take the issue to the probate Court to force the investment Company to accept the Will and Trust.

The Will nor the Trust mentioned anything about him receiving a share of her money.

It is our (beneficiaries) thought, mother didn't even know she had signed him as her sole beneficiary.

the Will did ask him to be the executor and Trust asked him to be Trustee.

Q: was it elder abuse for the guy to insert himself as her sole beneficiary?

Q: is this a type of Fraud?

the title of the trust now reads:

Jane Doe Living Trust U/A 01/01/10 John Doe Trustee For the Benefit of Jim Doe

we think it should read: John Doe Trustee U/A 01/01/10 Jane Doe Living Trust For the Benefit of Jim Doe

this might seem like nit picking but it isnt as this scoundrel is clever and difficult to catch.

All Replies Appreciated!

 

[dee_dub]

What does "U/A" stand for, and what do you think is the significance of whether the trust or trustee is listed first?

Where I come from, it is rare for a trust instrument to be titled with the name of the trustee first. It's almost always only the name of the donor.

A son-in-law helped his mother-in-law open an investment account with a notable company.

The same day, she made the son-in-law the sole beneficiary of all her assets and also authorized him to have full authority over her money.
...
Q: was it elder abuse for the guy to insert himself as her sole beneficiary?

Back up. He didn't "insert himself", according to your first statement - she inserted him.

You also need to define "elder abuse" and what you think was abusive. As far as I know, being made a beneficiary is not per se illegal.

Q: is this a type of Fraud?

Now you're barking up a better tree. The term you're looking for is "undue influence". A disposition made under undue influence may be void. On the facts you've provided so far, it is impossible to say whether that is the case here.

 

[dmtrust]

This was a crafty son-in-law who had all the outside appearances of being respective and adoring.

When mom passed, the guy gained control as Trustee and has been difficult ever since.
He is draining the Trust!

We just discovered when he helped her open an investment account after she sold her house and deposited all her money in it, she made him the sole beneficiary.

Six months later she passed away. He helped her set up a will and Trust and him as executor and Trustee with only reasonable compensation.

As there wasn't any reason to believe she would leave all her money to him we wonder if she knew she had authorized him to be sole beneficiary and have full access to all her money immediately.

This is about $500k.

He claims he didn't know she made him sole beneficiary.

Thanks In Advance For All Replies!

 

[dee_dub]

You say "she made him the full beneficiary of all her assets", and then you later say the will and the trust don't mention anything about him receiving a share of her money. I'm a bit confused. I presume you mean she put him on her bank accounts as joint holder with right of survivorship or something similar. So what's left in the estate?

 

[dmtrust]

When she opened an investment account she added him as her sole beneficiary with full trading authority.

Six months later when she made her Will and Living Trust she did not list him as a beneficiary.

She never talked about leaving him money.

It is believed she did not understand she had authorized him to be sole beneficiary of all her money.

She passed away in the midst of setting up her Living Trust and (seemingly) caught him as the sole beneficiary—contrary to what her Will and Trust stated. (to distribute her money among her immediate family – by name).

He then had to convince a Court to validate the Trust document to distribute the money to the rightful heirs.

We do not know what her original assets amounted to or what he may have done with some or any of it during the six months.

The easy (?) question to ask, is Did he as confident, ex-son-in-law, to-be-executor, to-be-Trustee, or simply friend commit Elder abuse for allowing her to assign him sole beneficiary with full trading authority of all her money without extrinsic evidence that she intended this arrangement. Conversely, can it be implied, without more, that it MAY HAVE been Elder abuse, subject to his actions later?

I admit I am digging for a charge, but I feel, judging his acts of Trustee and his later admitted hidden contempt he had for her, his unhonorable display to the beneficiaries and his present draining of the Trust, digging is reasonable, if it will stop him, restore the funds, and penalize him appropriately.

All Replies Appreciated!

 

[dee_dub]

She never talked about leaving him money.

It is believed she did not understand she had authorized him to be sole beneficiary of all her money.

I suspect you will need more than that. Just because she never talks about it doesn't mean she didn't intend it. What she actually DID was make him sole beneficiary of her account, and that speaks volumes.

I still don't know about elder abuse and would repeat my question: what do you mean by this? It is, as far as I'm aware, not a term of law per se. Maybe he did something sleazy, but that doesn't mean it's actionable. Unless he exercised undue influence (basically, he coerced or otherwise forced her) there is no legal wrong here capable of being redressed.