Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Mass. Appeals Court Hears Will‑contest Appeal Alleging Undue Influence
Loading...
Summary
In Ray Morgan (dkt. 25P765), the Massachusetts Appeals Court heard oral argument over whether affidavits alleging undue influence and incapacity met the statutory specificity required for probate challenges; petitioners argued factual indicia support their claim, while appellee said the affidavits lack the required time‑linked facts. The court took the case under advisement.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court on Zoom heard arguments in Ray Morgan, docket number 25P765, in which siblings Edward A. Morgan Jr. and Renee Whitehead appealed a probate court order striking their affidavits challenging their late father’s estate on grounds of undue influence and incapacity. Attorneys for both sides argued whether the affidavits plead the specificity Massachusetts law requires at the motion‑to‑strike stage.
The petitioners’ attorney, Robert Shapiro, told the three‑judge panel that the affidavits include concrete facts that, if taken as true at this procedural posture, support each element of undue influence: an alleged "unnatural disposition," susceptibility to influence, an opportunity to exercise influence, and actual use of that opportunity. Shapiro pointed to the timing of visits, text messages arranged by the decedent’s sister, an alleged change in caregivers, and social‑media posts as facts that permit an inference of cognitive decline and control. "She was acting as the gatekeeper," Shapiro said, describing the sister’s role in arranging visits and controlling contact with the decedent.
The appellee, Attorney Elizabeth Colbath, representing Michelle Morgan as personal representative of the estate, argued the probate judge properly struck the affidavits because they fail to allege the requisite specific facts tethered to the time of execution of the challenged will and thus do not show incapacity, undue influence or fraud. "This appeal is only an improper attempt to obtain discovery, force litigation when there's no factual basis," Colbath told the panel, asking the court to respect the statutory standard designed to prevent fishing expeditions.
The panel questioned both sides about the sufficiency of the pleaded facts. Counsel for the appellants cited Facebook posts and the decedent’s hospitalization as indicia of cognitive decline; the panel noted that social‑media expressions (and an "I love you" post) might equally be invoked as evidence of capacity. The advocates also debated whether leaving property to a relative who previously had not been a beneficiary can constitute an "unnatural disposition" warranting heightened scrutiny; petitioners relied on precedent they said supports treating the 2022 will as such a change, while appellee emphasized limitations of the affidavit‑stage review.
Both parties referenced Massachusetts authority in argument: the appellee repeatedly invoked the statute requiring specificity in affidavits used to challenge wills, and the petitioners cited case law they said governs analysis of an "unnatural disposition." The court interrupted at points to clarify that its review of the probate judge's order striking affidavits is confined to the objectors' pleaded averments at this procedural stage.
After approximately 15 minutes of argument from each side and extended questioning by the panel, Chief Justice Amy Blake said the court had "given us a lot to think about" and announced that the panel would take the case under advisement. The court did not rule from the bench.
The appeals panel's decision will resolve whether the petitioners' affidavits, as pleaded, survive a motion to strike under Massachusetts pleading standards and whether the factual allegations are sufficient to permit discovery or further proceedings in the probate court.
