Efforts to Change Will Without Legal Counsel Backfire

Making a will without the help of a qualified attorney can be dangerous.  Trying to change an existing will on your own can fail or have unintended consequences . A recent court decision in Minnesota serves as a cautionary reminder to anyone thinking about altering their estate plan without legal advice and counsel.

Esther Sullivan executed a will in 2006, that gave half of her property to her former employee, Tara Jean Johnson. Ms. Sullivan, left a small share of her estate to Joseph VanHale, her grandson. Two years later, in 2008, Ms. Sullivan allegedly attempted to change her 2006 will by marking up a photocopy of it and writing her initials next to each change and signing and dating the bottom of each page. She allegedly wrote on top of the 2008 photocopy, “[t]he Will dated January 19, 2006 is void and to be replace[d] with this and all written in changes.” Among the changes was that Mr. VanHale would replace Ms. Johnson as the beneficiary of half her estate. In 2010, Ms. Sullivan allegedly attempted to execute another will using a form she downloaded from the Internet. This document named Mr. VanHale as her only beneficiary.

After Ms. Sullivan’s death in 2013, the probate court had to decide which of the three wills should be followed. Mr. VanHale contended that the 2010 document was a valid will, while Ms. Johnson argued for the 2006 will. The probate court ruled that the 2008 photocopy and the 2010 downloaded document were invalid because they did not comply with the state’s requirements for a valid will, which include that the will must be signed by at least two witnesses. The court held that although Ms. Sullivan probably intended to revoke the 2006 will, she did not do so successfully. Mr. VanHale appealed, arguing that Ms. Sullivan clearly intended to revoke the 2006 will and that the 2010 document was valid.

On August 17, 2015, the Court of Appeals of Minnesota agreed with the lower court that the 2006 will should be the one admitted to probate. The court ruled that only an original will, not a photocopy, can be revoked. The court also agreed with the lower court that the 2010 document had not been validly executed.

If Ms. Sullivan did change her mind and decide that she wanted her grandson to inherit her estate, the fact that she didn’t do it properly meant that far from helping her grandson, she cost him a tidy sum in legal fees. People change their minds, and circumstances can change as well – marriage, divorce, the birth of children – and estate plans need to be revised along with these changes. If you want to alter your will or another element of your estate plan, contact your elder law attorney.

To read the court’s decision in the case, In re the Estate of Sullivan (Minn. Ct. App., No. A14– 2112, Aug. 17, 2015), click here.

Get legal Advice When Applying for Medicaid- State Can Recover From a Medicaid Recipient's Estate Even Though Estate Would Have Qualified for Hardship Waiver

A recent case underscores the importance of seeking and obtaining legal advice when dealing with Medicaid resource recovery.  A Michigan appeals court has ruled that a Medicaid recipient's estate cannot avoid estate recovery by claiming undue hardship because the state didn't pursue a hardship waiver when it had the chance. In re Estate of Clark (Mich. Ct. App., No. 320720, May 28, 2015).

Larry Wykle enrolled his mother, Violet Clark, in Medicaid. The application included an acknowledgment that the state may try to recover for services from Ms. Clark's estate and that the state may agree not to pursue recovery if an undue hardship exists. After Ms. Clark died, Mr. Wykle became the administrator of her estate. The state notified Mr. Wykle that it intended to recover Medicaid expenditures. The notice included information about applying for a hardship exemption. The estate's only asset was a house that was valued at less than the average price of a home in the area, which under the state Medicaid plan would have made it eligible for a hardship exemption.

Mr. Wykle did not pursue the hardship waiver and he denied the state's claim. The state sued the estate. Mr. Wykle argued that the estate could not collect against the estate because the value of the home qualified for a hardship waiver, and that the state did not provide Mr. Wykle with information how to apply for a hardship waiver, informing him only that such a waiver was available.  The trial court granted the estate summary judgment because the estate consisted only of a modest household and the state did not provide Mr. Wykle with information on how to apply for a hardship waiver when he enrolled Ms. Clark in Medicaid.The state appealed.

The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Mr. Wykle received proper notice of the hardship exemption and that the hardship exemption does not prevent the state from pursuing estate recovery against an estate that might have qualified, but did not apply. The court rules that Mr. Wykle "cannot now attempt to avail himself of the waiver’s benefits without having followed the procedural rules necessary to claim the benefit." In addition, the court rules that the written notice about the waiver in the application was sufficient.

For the full text of this decision, click here.