Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Financial Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court reviews trial findings after UBS sought judicial instruction following concern about account-holder capacity
Summary
UBS sought declaratory relief and instructions after it flagged account-holder Bernadine Matten as a vulnerable client; the Land Court found Matten had capacity and ordered UBS to follow trustees’ directions, while the bank defended its steps as reasonable in light of alleged "red flags."
Thomas McMillan, representing Thomas Matten (individually and as personal representative of Bernadine Matten’s estate) in UBS Financial Services v. Matten (24P748), said the trial court’s declaratory judgment contained factual errors that could affect related litigation in Essex County Superior Court. Counsel said the trial judge correctly found that Bernadine had capacity to execute amendments and a durable power of attorney, but alleged subsidiary factual findings — for example about whether UBS froze or otherwise declined to honor transfer instructions after an August 7 telephone conference — were inconsistent with exhibits and witness testimony and could harm Matten in parallel civil litigation.
UBS counsel Sandy Durland (Warner Federico & Ryan) told the Appeals Court that the company acted reasonably after receiving multiple "red flags," invoking internal procedures for vulnerable-client coding and security holds. Durland said the firm’s compliance officer, Susan Wolf, and other employees investigated, contacted the account holder, and placed a hold to prevent potentially imprudent or coerced transactions; the judge’s factual findings about the hold and the sequence of communications, UBS argued, are supported by a voluminous record of exhibits, witness testimony, and contemporaneous communications.
The panel asked detailed questions about which in‑house instructions were followed, when transfers were requested and whether a guardian’s report or a neuropsychological exam resolved all concerns. Both sides acknowledged the case’s collateral posture — a related civil action in Essex County — and urged careful review of the trial record. The court reserved decision.
