A Cautionary Tale for Aging-in-Place Planning in Ohio: Embezzlement, Undue Influence, and the Importance of Safeguards in Estate Management

In a recent case that underscores the vulnerabilities of aging individuals and the critical need for robust estate planning, an Ohio appeals court has ruled that Thomas Means, a Columbus man, embezzled $1.38 million from his father, Johnston Means, and exerted undue influence to alter his father’s 2020 will. This decision, handed down by the Third District Court of Appeals and affirming the Union County Probate Court, serves as a stark reminder of the risks faced by seniors, particularly those relying on family members for care and financial management. For those planning to age in place, this case highlights the importance of implementing safeguards to protect assets and ensure wishes are honored. Below, we explore the case, its implications, and actionable steps to safeguard your plan.

The Case: Thomas Means and the Abuse of Trust
Johnston Means, a retired attorney and Korean War veteran, passed away in June 2021 at age 93. Beginning in 2019, his son Thomas took on the role of daily caregiver and acted under Johnston’s power of attorney (POA), giving him significant control over his father’s financial and legal affairs. In 2020, Johnston’s will was updated, shifting from an equal division of assets between Thomas and his brother, Daniel, as outlined in earlier wills, to a distribution heavily favoring Thomas. The secretive drafting and execution of this will raised red flags for Daniel, who challenged it after their father’s death.
The Union County Probate Court found that Thomas exerted undue influence over his father, leveraging his position as caregiver and POA to isolate Johnston from independent legal counsel and orchestrate the 2020 will’s creation. The Third District Court of Appeals unanimously upheld this ruling, noting that evidence contradicted Thomas’ claims, including his control over Johnston’s estate planning and the will’s secretive nature. The court also affirmed that Thomas and his wife, Ann, concealed, embezzled, and improperly transferred $1.38 million of Johnston’s assets, violating their fiduciary duties.
As a result, Thomas and Ann were ordered to repay the estate $1.38 million, plus additional hundreds of thousands for lost capital growth. They must also pay Daniel approximately $463,000 in statutory penalties, costs, and attorney fees. Thomas now faces criminal charges for aggravated theft and other offenses in Union County, highlighting the severe legal consequences of such actions.Lessons for Aging-in-Place PlanningThis case echoes the cautionary tale of In re Beams, where similar issues of undue influence and asset mismanagement arose. For individuals planning to age in place, particularly those relying on family members for care, the Means case underscores several critical risks and the need for proactive protections:

1. Undue Influence by Caregivers: As Johnston’s caregiver and POA, Thomas held a position of trust, which he exploited to alter the will in his favor. Seniors who depend on family for care are vulnerable to manipulation, especially if isolated from other advisors or family members.
2. Asset Concealment and Embezzlement: Thomas’ embezzlement of $1.38 million demonstrates how unchecked control over finances can lead to significant losses. Ohio Revised Code Section 2109.50 addresses concealment of probate assets, allowing courts to compel repayment and impose penalties, as seen in this case.
3. Lack of Oversight: The secretive nature of the 2020 will’s creation and Johnston’s isolation from independent counsel highlight the dangers of inadequate oversight. Without checks and balances, trusted individuals can abuse their authority.
4. Impact on Vulnerable Seniors: At 93, Johnston was particularly susceptible to influence due to his age and reliance on Thomas. Aging-in-place plans must account for cognitive or physical vulnerabilities that increase the risk of exploitation.

Safeguards to Protect Your Aging-in-Place PlanTo avoid scenarios like the Means case, consider these strategies to secure your estate and ensure your wishes are respected:

1. Incorporate a Private Care Agreement: A Private Care Agreement is a legal contract between you and a family member or caregiver, outlining caregiving duties and fair compensation. This can:
   • Manage Care Costs: By setting reasonable payment rates (aligned with local market rates), you avoid overpaying for care, preserving assets compared to costly professional agencies.
   • Incentivize Trusted Care: The agreement encourages family members to commit to providing or overseeing care, ensuring a personal touch that corporate trustees or distant relatives may lack.
   • Protect Medicaid Eligibility: Properly structured payments are considered compensation, not gifts, avoiding penalties under Medicaid’s five-year look-back period. Consult an elder law attorney to ensure compliance, including a written, signed agreement specifying services and fair market rates.
   In the Means case, a Private Care Agreement could have formalized Thomas’ caregiving role, limiting his financial control and reducing opportunities for embezzlement.
2. Appoint a Trust Protector: A trust protector is an independent third party, such as an attorney, who oversees the trustee’s actions to ensure they align with your intentions. This is critical when a family member or corporate trustee manages your assets, especially for vulnerable beneficiaries. A trust protector could have intervened in the Means case to question Thomas’ actions and protect Johnston’s estate.
3. Consider a Corporate Trustee with Oversight: While family members like Thomas may seem trustworthy, professional trustees offer expertise and impartiality. The 2025 America’s Most Advisor-Friendly Trust Companies guide The Wealth Advisor lists reputable corporate trustees. However, they have drawbacks:
   • High Costs: Fees can erode trust assets.
   • Bureaucracy: Institutional processes may delay distributions for care needs.
   • Impersonal Approach: Corporate trustees may lack empathy for vulnerable beneficiaries.
   Pair a corporate trustee with a trust protector and a Private Care Agreement to balance professionalism with personalized care. Inquire whether the trustee can manage distributions for care agreements and accommodate oversight.
4. Engage Independent Legal Counsel: Johnston’s isolation from independent counsel enabled Thomas’ undue influence. Always involve an elder law attorney in estate planning to review wills, trusts, and POAs, ensuring they reflect your true wishes.
5. Regular Financial Oversight: Require periodic accounting from your POA or trustee, reviewed by an independent advisor. This could have detected Thomas’ asset concealment earlier.
6. Communicate with Family: Transparency about your estate plan can prevent disputes. Daniel’s challenge arose from the secretive will change, highlighting the need for open communication.

What You Can DoTo protect your aging-in-place plan and avoid the pitfalls seen in the Means case, take these steps today:

• Consult an Elder Law Attorney: Work with a professional to draft or review your will, trust, and POA. Ensure any Private Care Agreement complies with Medicaid rules.
• Consider Trustee/Agent Appointments Carefully:  Consider carefully who you are empowering, and whether the authority conferred to him/her is too broad. Consider corporate trustees.  If appropriate, use the 2025 America’s Most Advisor-Friendly Trust Companies guide to identify a corporate trustee, but verify their experience with care-related distributions and trust protectors.
• Implement a Private Care Agreement: Formalize caregiving arrangements with family to manage costs and protect assets. Your attorney can draft an agreement tailored to your needs.
• Appoint a Trust Protector: Add this safeguard to your trust to monitor the trustee’s actions, especially if you or a beneficiary are vulnerable.
• Educate Yourself: Visit and subscribe to our blog for more resources on protecting your assets and planning for long-term care.

Final ThoughtsThe Means case is a sobering example of how trust and caregiving roles can be abused, leading to significant financial loss and family conflict. By incorporating a Private Care Agreement, appointing a trust protector, and engaging professional oversight, you can mitigate these risks and ensure your aging-in-place plan supports your independence and security. Don’t let your legacy fall victim to undue influence or mismanagement—act now to safeguard your future.

A Cautionary Tale for Aging in Place Seniors and Their Children - In Re Beam

The recent decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in In re Beam, No. 768 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 1, 2025), serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of fiduciary responsibility and proactive estate planning, particularly for seniors and their children. This case highlights the consequences of mismanagement under a general durable power of attorney (POA) and the evolving role of probate courts. For seniors and their families, the lessons are clear: failure to plan and document can lead to devastating financial and legal outcomes. For attorneys, the case raises intriguing questions about judicial trends and the balance between traditional probate principles and modern reformist pressures.

Facts and Procedural PostureDorothy Beam, an elderly woman, appointed her great-niece, Vaneeda Days, as her agent under a POA in 2016. In July 2018, Dorothy entered Renaissance Healthcare & Rehabilitation, where she resided until her death in December 2018.  Dorothy dies intestate (without a will), and was survived by Vaneeda and her great-nephew, Shaheed Days. During this period, Vaneeda failed to pay Dorothy’s outstanding nursing home balance of $32,534.28, instead making numerous withdrawals totaling $140,205.95 from Dorothy’s bank accounts, depleting them entirely.
Following Dorothy’s death, David Jaskowiak was appointed administrator of her estate. He petitioned the orphan’s court, alleging Vaneeda’s breach of fiduciary duty through self-dealing and inadequate accounting of the withdrawals. Despite court orders, Vaneeda delayed filing an account, leading to contempt proceedings. When she finally submitted a final account, it acknowledged the Renaissance debt but failed to reconcile the $140,205.95 in withdrawals with documented expenses. David objected, citing misappropriation and lack of transparency.
The orphan’s court, in an unusually lenient ruling, confirmed Vaneeda’s account and imposed a surcharge limited to the $32,534.28 owed to Renaissance, dismissing broader claims due to insufficient evidence and speculating the remaining withdrawals might have been gifts. David appealed, arguing this was an abuse of discretion. 
The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed, finding Vaneeda’s failure to account, appear at trial, or substantiate her actions constituted clear evidence of fiduciary breach. Inferring self-gifting, the court remanded the case, directing a surcharge of the full $140,205.95. Given the court’s stance, it is highly likely the orphan’s court will now impose this full amount, an obligation that may not be dischargeable in bankruptcy and is unlikely to be fully paid, leaving Vaneeda to face significant asset and income loss.Lessons for Seniors and Their ChildrenThis case underscores the vulnerability of seniors and the critical need for structured planning, especially when long-term care is involved. Here are the key takeaways:

• For Seniors:
  • Specify POA Intent: Dorothy’s POA granted unlimited gifting authority without clear guidance, enabling misuse. Seniors should include specific instructions (e.g., care funding limits) and review documents with an elder law attorney.
  • Deploy Trusts:  Trusts are more capable vehicles for sophisticated planning, specifically planning that spans financial, social, legal, and medical planning.
  • Plan for Care Costs: To avoid spend-down scenarios, consider legal Medicaid planning tools like irrevocable trusts (with the 5-year lookback) or private care agreements to justify asset transfers legally, and consider financial planning techniques such as long-term care or catastrophic needs insurance.
  • Appoint Oversight: Designate a co-agent or successor to monitor POA actions, or with trusts, trust protectors or special trustees, preventing unchecked depletion as seen with Vaneeda.
  • Regular Updates: Revisit estate plans with changing health needs to ensure alignment with wishes, reducing the risk of exploitation.
  • Protect Digital Assets: Sometimes, the digital information necessary to provide context, or indeed to prove a claim regarding use of assets, is lost because digital information is lost for want of proper planning. 
• For Children (POA Agents):
  • Document Transactions: Vaneeda’s failure to provide receipts or explanations led to a $140,205.95 surcharge. Maintain detailed records of all withdrawals, especially for care or gifting, to defend against claims.
  • Seek Legal Counsel: Engage an attorney to navigate POA powers, ensuring compliance with fiduciary duties. A private care agreement could have justified transfers to offset nursing costs.
  • Avoid Self-Dealing: Even with gifting authority, self-transfers must reflect the principal’s intent. Vaneeda’s lack of evidence doomed her defense.
  • Act Transparently: Respond to court orders promptly; Vaneeda’s contempt citations exacerbated her liability.

The likely full surcharge, potentially non-dischargeable in bankruptcy (under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) for fiduciary fraud), and its uncollectible nature highlight the personal toll. Vaneeda may lose assets or income pursuing payment plans, a cautionary outcome of poor planning.Implications for Attorneys: An Oddity in Probate CourtsFor legal professionals, In re Beam is an anomaly. The court’s initial leniency, limiting the surcharge to $32,534.28 despite uncontested evidence of a $140,205.95 depletion, contrasts with the stricter stance of the Superior Court. This deference or leniency is more familiar in criminal or certain civil courts, where modern reforms sometimes prioritize social or economic justice over traditional legal maxims. Probate courts, historically rooted in protecting vulnerable estates, have been less swayed by such trends, focusing on fiduciary accountability and evidence-based rulings.
The Superior Court’s reversal aligns with this tradition, emphasizing Vaneeda’s breach over speculative gifting. However, the initial ruling raises a question: Could this reflect a creeping influence of reformist leniency, perhaps to avoid overburdening family agents in caregiving roles? If so, might probate courts increasingly adopt a more forgiving approach, balancing justice with practical family dynamics? This case suggests a potential shift, though it remains an outlier given the robust reversal. Attorneys should monitor future cases for patterns, advising clients to rely on documented plans rather than judicial discretion.
Pennsylvania is a filial responsibility state, unlike any other state in many respects.  You can read all of this Blog's articles regarding filial responsibility here. The courts do not mention the filial responsibility law in the consideration and resolution of the case.  One wonders whether the ultimate result is compelled by the filial responsibility law, and the court was as interested in judicial economy, essentially saving the state from the necessity of initiating a separate action against  Vaneeda for recovery under the filial responsibility law.    ConclusionIn re Beam is a sobering lesson for seniors and children, illustrating the perils of unchecked POA authority and the need for proactive estate planning. For Dorothy, a trust or care agreement could have protected her assets; for Vaneeda, transparency might have mitigated her liability. The case also challenges attorneys to consider whether probate courts are evolving, urging vigilance in counseling clients to avoid such pitfalls. Consult an elder law attorney to safeguard your legacy and comply with fiduciary standards.