COA affirms for daughters against late father’s wife in will dispute

Two daughters who claimed their father was of unsound mind when he executed a purported will and that his new wife tortiously interfered with their inheritance won a judgment against her from the Indiana Court of Appeals.

After their mother’s death in 2016, sisters Catherine Moriarty and Paula Bowers noticed that their father began to act out of character toward them and others. Although the daughters had a historically close relationship and family dynamic with their father, William Moriarty, they noticed an unusual shift after his wife’s passing. William stopped talking to Bowers and informed Cathy that he did not want her to visit him.

Meanwhile, William began dating Mary Eve Kassen Moriarty just weeks after his wife died, and neither daughter was made aware of the relationship until soon before William and Eve were to be married seven months later. In what his daughters noted as “out of character”, none of William’s family members or friends were invited to the wedding and all were shocked at how quickly things had progressed.

Following the marriage, Bowers and Cathy were not permitted to participate in William’s medical care as they had previously. Their father had congestive heart failure and was later diagnosed with anxiety and depression from the date of his first wife’s death to his own death in May 2017.

Throughout his marriage to Eve, the daughters observed that William continued to act out of character by purchasing an expensive house, an expensive car just 10 days before his death, although he couldn’t drive, and by surrendering his Prudential life insurance policy into an account jointly owned by himself and Eve.

Additionally, William executed a purported will directing all tangible personal property and the entire residue of his estate to be distributed to Eve if she survived him, also nominating her to serve as personal representative of his estate. Prior to their marriage and based on numerous specific statements made by William over many years, Bowers and Cathy each expected to inherit one-half of William’s assets. Their father had also discussed his intention that everything he and their mother owned would be split between the daughters and their aunt.

After William died, the daughters filed a verified petition for supervised administration of his estate while Eve filed a petition for probate of the purported will without court supervision. The women asserted that their father’s purported will was invalid because William was of unsound mind when he executed it and/or the will was a product of undue influence and that Eve tortiously interfered with their inheritance.

A trial court ultimately agreed with the daughters, citing that William was susceptible to undue influence based on his untreated anxiety, depression and his isolation, and that Eve exercised undue influence over him. It then declared the purported will to be invalid, rejected the probate of the purported will, and ordered that William’s estate be distributed as an intestate estate.

The court further ordered Eve to transfer title of the home and vehicle to William’s estate, and entered a money judgment against her in constructive trust in favor of William’s estate in the amount reflecting the value of the joint accounts received by Eve at $54,665.83.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in Mary Eve Kassen Moriarty v. Cathereine C. Moriarty, et al., 19A-PL-02342, rejecting Eve’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the daughters to reopen their case-in-chief in order call Eve as a witness during the hearing.

It further affirmed that the trial court’s legal conclusions that the purported will is invalid are not clearly erroneous, and noted among other things the trial court’s finding regarding “Eve’s demeanor in court, which consisted of a flat affect during emotional testimony of Paula and Cathy about their father’s last hours and during Eve’s own testimony, which leaves this factfinder with no confidence that Eve married William because she loved him and with the conclusion that Eve planned to take all of William’s money all along.”

Lastly, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the daughters on their tortious interference of inheritance claim was not clearly erroneous.

“Eve also contends that the evidence and findings fail to support the conclusion that William did not intend for Eve to receive the inter vivos transfers. Eve’s argument ignores findings 237 and 238 pertaining to undue influence, many of which apply to the inter vivos transfers as well as to the execution of the Purported Will,” Judge Terry Crone wrote for the appellate court. “We conclude that Eve’s argument is a request to reweigh the evidence, which we must decline.”