In 2014 Ralph Christie, who was in his mid-80s, brought his car to a mechanic for repairs. He and the younger mechanic, Christopher Chetwynd, found that they had much in common. Both men enjoyed cars, baseball, and history. They were also fellow Free Mason.
A friendship developed between the two. Christopher help his elderly friend with transportation and other daily necessities. This care and supervision eventually lead to Christopher assisting Ralph with his estate plan.
In 2016 Christopher contacted a lawyer he knew and asked her to prepare a power of attorney (POA) for Ralph to sign.
The POA named Christopher as Ralph’s attorney-in-fact. The document also stated that Christopher could not act as Ralph’s attorney-in-fact unless a physician certified that Ralph was incapable of acting for himself in business or legal matters.
Despite this provision, Christopher began to use the POA to execute documents on Ralph’s behalf without the requisite certification.
In 2017 Ralph was admitted at an assisted living facility. While there, Christopher contacted the same lawyer and supposedly told her that Ralph wanted to devise part of his estate to Christopher. Accordingly, the lawyer drafted a will which devised a portion of Ralph’s estate to Christopher and also named Christopher as the estate’s personal representative.
Ralph died within a year of signing the will. After his death, Christopher sought to probate the estate at the Norfolk Probate & Family Court.
Ralph’s heirs objected to the will, arguing that Ralph signed the document under “undue influence.”
Undue influence . . . creates a situation where the victim’s own free will is destroyed or overcome such that what he does, his action, is contrary to his true desire and free will. See Howe v. Palmer, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 736, 740 (2011)
Typically, the party who objects to a will (in this case Ralph’s heirs) has the burden of proving “undue influence.”
However, in cases involving a fiduciary, the fiduciary who benefits in a transaction with the person for whom he is a fiduciary bears the burden of establishing that the transaction did not violate his obligations” (quotation omitted). Matter of the Estate of Urban, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 284, 290 (2023).
The probate judge concluded that Christopher was a fiduciary due to the 2016 POA which made him Ralph’s attorney-in-fact. Thus, the burden was on Christopher to show that no undue influence was imposed on Ralph when he signed the will.
Ralph first argued that his powers under the 2016 POA were no activated by the requisite doctor certification. The court rejected this argument because Ralph allegedly exercised his powers under the POA without the certification.
Next Ralph claimed that an independent attorney drafted the will and acted in Ralph’s sole interest during its execution. Applicable case law states that
A fiduciary generally can meet the burden of proof by showing that the principal made the bequest with the advice of independent counsel. Id.
Again, the court rejected Ralph’s claim. Ralph initiated contact with the lawyer whom he knew beforehand. Additionally, the lawyer made errors which suggested to the court that she was not acting in Ralph’s interest. For example, she spelled Ralph’s last name wrong in the will and also got his address incorrect.
The probate court’s written “findings and rationale” is attached below.
Based on these findings, the probate judge nullified the will.
Christopher appealed. The Appeals Court sided with the probate judge. According to the justices:
The judge…found that Chetwynd took steps to insert himself into the decedent’s life over the three years prior to the execution of the will. The decedent came to rely on Chetwynd for transportation, socialization, and advice. Once Chetwynd had gained the decedent’s trust, Chetwynd contacted his own acquaintances to draft various agreements and estate planning documents for Chetwynd’s own benefit. This evidence was sufficient to support the judge’s finding of undue influence
To read the full opinion, click the document below.