Arkansas Court Of Appeals Rejects Cousin's Attempt To Set Aside Gifts To The Decedent's "Yardman"

One common thread running throughout this blog since its inception has been the issue of competency, i.e., the ability of a person to make informed decisions.  Conflicts often arise when ill or elderly people are claimed to have made signficant decisions regarding disposition of their property shortly before they died---sometimes the decision will be legitimate, the culmination of some long, thought-out plan that just never was memorialized on paper until shortly before their death---whereas sometimes the "decision" will be illegitimate, the product of undue influence or overreaching by a dishonest relative, family friend, or advisor.  Whatever the facts and circumstances, it can be difficult to prove that the person did not have competency to make the decision that they purportedly made.  A recent Arkansas Court of Appeals decision demonstrates that the outcome of these disputes usually boils down to the specific evidence that was presented to the trial court, and ultimately what evidence that the trial court found to be the most credible. 

For example, on March 3, 2010, the Court of Appeals ruled in the case of Deslauriers v. Marilyn Irene Deslauriers Revocable Trust, 2010 Ark.App. 211.  An appeal from Lonoke County Circuit Court, the appellant (Killeen) attempted to invalidate certain documents (quitclaim deed, revocable trust, will, etc.) executed by her cousin, the deceased, during and after her 2005 stay in a hospital due to a stroke.  As a result of those documents, the appellee (Richard, the deceased's "yardman") received the bulk of the cousin's estate.  Killeen filed suit after the cousin's death to contest the validity of the documents in question, contending that the cousin was not competent to execute them due to her medical condition. 

Under Arkansas law, the party contesting the validity of a will generally has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence ("more likely than not"), (1) that the decedent lacked mental capacity at the time the will was executed or (2) that the decedent was acting under undue influence.  The Deslauriers Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the cousin attempting to set aside the documents did not satisfy that burden. 

Killeen presented the testimony of multiple doctors who had treated the deceased around the time of her execution of the documents, and they all testified  that she suffered from dementia and would purportedly be incompetent to sign the documents (though they were admittedly not in attendance at the signing).  Medical records also demonstrated a range of impairment (from mild to severe) at different times during the relevant time period.  Killeen likewise presented the testimony of two non-medical witnesses, one of whom contended that  the deceased was mentally incompetent (in their experience) and both of whom testified that the deceased intended to keep her property "in the family."

Richard presented the testimony of the lawyer whom the cousin used to prepare the documents in question, and he testified that he was very careful to determine whether his client was legally competent to execute the documents.  The attorney also testified that he had been hired to prepare a power of attorney so that Killeen and Richard could be placed in charge of the deceased's business affairs, and that Killeen herself believed the deceased to be an odd person but very competent.  Two other witnesses also testified, in a manner favoring Richard's position, to the extent that they were disinterested employees working at the hospital where the deceased was treated and they observed her as competent when they witnessed her signing of the will.   Richard also offered other evidence in the form of the attorney testifying that he met with the deceased several times after her initial execution of the documents, and in the  form of a doctor who treated the deceased remarking that he was impressed how mentally capable (though not physically capable) she remained after her stroke.

In sum, the trial court concluded that the cousin did not prove incompetency and that the deceased was sufficiently competent at the time that she executed the documents.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that while proof of medical condition around the time of the execution of the documents is relevant and important, ultimately the medical condition at the time of execution is paramount.  The Court seemed to attach particular significance to the testimony of the witnesses who were actually in the room when the decedent signed the documents in question.  Observing that it is possible for a testator to execute a document during a "lucid interval" in a period where they may otherwise be incompetent as a general matter, the case generally demonstrates the difficulty that a party can have in attempting to prove a testator's   incompetency. 

General Duties Of A Trustee Under Arkansas Law

Clients and potential clients---whether a beneficiary of a trust or perhaps even the trustee of a trust---often ask about the duties of a trustee under Arkansas law.  This is a very broad question and cannot be done justice in a single Blog post.  

However, in general (unless the trust specifically overrides the general requirement) a trustee is charged with:

---A Duty To Obey The Grantor (while the trust is still revocable the duties of the trustee are owed to the grantor, and the trustee may generally follow a direction of the grantor even if it is still contrary to the trust's terms)

---A Duty Of Administration (to administer the trust in good faith, according to the trust's terms and purposes and the interests of the beneficiaries);

---A Duty Of Loyalty (perhaps the most important duty, which includes putting the interests of the beneficiaries above the interest of the trustee or any third party);

---A Duty Of Impartiality (whenever the trust has two or more beneficiaries, to act with impartiality with regard to the investment, management, and distribution of the trust property);

---A Duty Of Prudent Administration (regardless of whether the trustee receives compensation, to administer the trust as a prudent person would in light of the purposes, terms, requirements, and other circumstances of the trust);

---A Duty To Control And Care For Trust Property (to collect and insure trust property, pay debts and hire caretakers if necessary, keep adequate records, keep trust property separate from the trustee's own property, enforce claims of the trust, defend claims against the trust, not allow beneficiaries to use trust property unless otherwise allowed, etc.);

---A Duty To Report (to provide information about the trust in general, the trustee, the trust's existence, the trustee's compensation, the assets and liabilities, etc.; keep in mind that this duty may only come into effect once the grantor of a revocable trust is deceased or deemed incompetent);

---A Duty Of Confidentiality (trustees have been charged with the responsibility to keep trust matters, including the terms of the trust, the nature of the trust's assets, and the identity of beneficiaries, confidential unless waived by the terms of the trust or required by law);

---A Duty To Administer The Trust In An Appropriate Place (while the trustee can move a trust's primary place of administration, the trustee is under a continuing duty to administer the trust in a location that is appropriate in light of the trust's purposes, administration, and interests of the beneficiaries); and

---A Duty To Use Reasonable Care To Prevent Cotrustees From Breaching The Trust, And To Obtain Redress If A Breach Is Committed (this basically means just what it says---if the first trustee has a cotrustee [second trustee] and that second trustee is violating their fiduciary duties, the first trustee has an obligation to take reasonable action to prevent further harm).

A trustee's duties have been stated in different ways, but the foregoing is a fair summary of the trustee's primary obligations under Arkansas law.  Again, the terms of the trust itself can override some of these duties, which is why it is extremely important to read and understand the actual language of the trust instrument.  All of these issues will be examined in more depth in later Blog posts.