Haynes v. First National State Bank Of New Jersey

32 A.2d 890 (1981)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Isabel's husband had acquired substantial stock aggregating almost eight million dollars. This was distributed to his widow and their two daughters, both outright and in trust. Betty Haynes, one of the daughters, came along with her two sons to live with Isabel. The relationships between mother and daughter were extremely close. Betty remained with her mother until Betty's death in June 1973. The two sons were a disappointment to their mother and grandmother. When Betty died, Isabel was 84 and suffered from glaucoma, cataracts, and diverticulitis, and had recently broken her hip. Isabel moved in with her younger daughter, Dorcas her husband, John. Isabel remained an alert, intelligent, and commanding personality until the time of her death. A longstanding family attorney, Richard Stevens, of Philadelphia prepared a number of wills and trusts for Isabel over the years. Isabel treated the Haynes and the Dorcas family branches equally. During the last four years of her life, while living with Dorcas, she drastically favored Dorcas and her children while diminishing and excluding the interests of Ps. Stevens testified about how Dorcas prepared documents to assist in the reformulation of Isabel's estate. The charts were to make 'substantial outright gifts to the members of the Dorcas family and smaller gifts to Ps. Isabel also told him about the pressure upon her by Dorcas to change her will was enormous. Stevens even received a detailed letter written by John simply stating the objective was for Stevens to make sure that Dorcas got just about everything without having to pay taxes. Sensing that Stevens would not cooperate, Dorcas brought in another attorney, Buttermore who was the attorney for Dorcas. Buttermore consulted Stevens and confirmed that Dorcas was deeply involved in Isabel's estate planning. Stevens began receiving joint letters merely signed by Isabel but drafted and clearly made under the extensive influence of Dorcas as well as signed by Dorcas. Dorcas wanted immediate access to the funds by trusts. Based on meeting and letters, Stevens brought up the issue of undue influence to which Buttermore never replied. Once Isabel was able to meet with Buttermore by herself, drastic changes occurred. Isabel assertedly indicated that she wanted 'to leave [her estate] equally . . . between the grandchildren,' and did not care about the adverse tax consequence which Buttermore claimed he had explained to her. Buttermore also apparently showed Stevens' letter of December 18 concerning undue influence to Isabel. This resulted in the near total severance of Ps from their grandmother's estate. Dorcas got everything she wanted. Stevens was astonished at the new distributions. He also expressed surprise about the provision in both trust agreements, which permitted Dorcas to withdraw the principal each year so that, if exercised, there might be nothing left when she died. At still a further meeting Isabel indicated a new plan to give Dorcas everything despite additional taxes of $800,000. Isabel died, and the will was admitted to probate. Ps claimed undue influence.