In re Jacobson
| Decision Date | 06 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1741, Sept. Term, 2021 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF Andrea JACOBSON |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by: Richard D. Paugh, Rockville, MD, for Appellant
Argued by: Patrick J. Kearney (Selzer, Gurvitch, Rabin, Wertheimer & Polott PC, Bethesda, MD), on the brief, for Appellee
Panel: Arthur, Leahy, J. Frederick Sharer (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.*
Leahy, J. Appellant Amy Silverstone ("Amy") filed a petition for guardianship on October 2, 2020, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, to obtain control over the person and property of her mother, Andrea Jacobson ("Andrea").1 Amy amended the guardianship petition to include claims normally reserved to estate administration while her mother was still alive. At its core, this appeal concerns Amy's effort to set aside her mother's estate planning documents (including several wills, revocable trust agreements, and powers of attorney) conferring authority upon appellee/cross-appellant Lisa Jacobson ("Lisa")—Andrea's sister and Amy's aunt. Amy contends that these documents were the product of undue influence and should therefore be declared null and void. Andrea and Lisa insist that Amy lacks standing to contest these estate documents based on undue influence because Andrea is still alive.
Amy challenges two orders issued by the circuit court. First, the order entered on November 2, 2021, dismissing the remaining claim in Amy's Second Amended Petition for Guardianship; specifically, Count IV, setting out her undue influence challenge to Andrea's estate planning documents. Second, the order entered on December 13, 2021, denying Amy's motion to reconsider the November 2 order and striking Amy's Third Amended Petition, filed after judgment was entered. In their cross-appeal, Andrea and Lisa contest the circuit court's order denying their joint motion for sanctions entered on December 17, 2021.
Accordingly, the parties present four questions for our review.2 Amy's questions, here consolidated and rephrased based on the issues addressed in her briefing and at oral argument, are:
Andrea and Lisa's question condenses to the following:
IV. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in denying Andrea and Lisa's motion for sanctions?
We discern no error or abuse of discretion by the circuit court. First, we hold that the court correctly concluded that Amy lacked standing to challenge the validity of Andrea's wills and revocable trust agreements while Andrea is still living because Amy has no property interest in her mother's trust assets or potential probate estate other than a remote expectancy as a presumptive intestate heir. Also, because Amy failed to allege any misuse or abuse of power by Lisa in her capacity as agent, she was not able to invoke the judicial process to challenge Andrea's durable, statutory form, and health care powers of attorney. Moreover, the circuit court properly dismissed Count IV because Amy relied entirely on bald and conclusory allegations in her pleading.
Second, we hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Amy's motion to reconsider because Amy's deficient motion did not bring the court's attention to any errors that it was required to rectify. Instead, Amy simply provided page-length quotations from two prior cases setting out black-letter law on undue influence without any explanation as to how the court erred in dismissing her petition on grounds of standing.
Third, we discern no abuse of discretion in the circuit court's decisions to (1) deny Amy leave to amend, and (2) strike Amy's Third Amended Petition filed after judgment was entered and before obtaining leave to file it under Maryland Rule 2-322(c). Nor did the circuit court err, as Amy contends, in declining to issue a declaration of the parties’ rights by striking the improper pleading without reaching its merits.
Fourth, we hold the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Andrea and Lisa's joint motion for sanctions against Amy for filing her motion to reconsider the court's November 2 order. Even if Andrea and Lisa could show that Amy brought her motion to reconsider in bad faith or without substantial justification, the circuit court was well within its discretion to deny an award of sanctions.
For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Andrea is a 72-year-old woman currently living in Rockville, Maryland. She has been diagnosed with dementia
, memory impairment, and cognitive impairment. Andrea is cared for by a variety of specialists, including a geriatric case manager, neurologist, primary-care physician, several financial and tax professionals, and her sister, Lisa. She lives primarily off the income produced by a testamentary trust created by her mother (the "Virginia Trust"), of which she is co-trustee and lifetime income beneficiary along with Lisa.3
Andrea's immediate family includes Lisa, Amy, and her grandson, Bryce—Amy's son. Amy and Andrea appeared to enjoy a loving relationship that became strained over time, leading to their eventual estrangement. In particular, following two lengthy exchanges over text on July 10, 2018, and February 22, 2019, communication between Amy and her mother essentially ceased. In Amy's view, the parties’ falling out stemmed over money and various loans from Andrea to Amy. Amy texted Andrea that it was "awful and disgusting that money is more important to you than your relationship with Bryce and I." Andrea, in turn, responded that "money is only a part of it" and that she remained disappointed that "I never hear from you unless you want something." As the filial relationship turned more and more acrimonious, Andrea had already begun reorganizing her affairs.
In 2015, Andrea executed a series of documents which conferred upon Lisa the authority to manage Andrea's care and finances. On December 2, 2015, Andrea executed a durable power of attorney (the "POA") naming Lisa as her agent and providing her with broad powers to manage Andrea's affairs. The POA also named Julia Lipps-Joachim ("Julia"), Lisa's daughter and Andrea's niece, as the successor agent in the event Lisa could no longer serve. On the same day, Andrea executed a Maryland Statutory Form Financial Power of Attorney also naming Lisa and Julia as agent and successor agent respectively. Along the same vein, Andrea executed an advanced medical directive authorizing Lisa, or Julia in her stead, to make end-of-life medical decisions for Andrea. In June of 2019, those documents were amended to swap Lisa's other daughter, Emily Treanor ("Emily"), for Julia as the successor agent.
From 2016 through 2019, Andrea also restructured her estate. On April 27, 2016, Andrea executed an Amended Trust Agreement for the Andrea Susan Jacobson Revocable Trust naming Lisa as trustee and remainder beneficiary, with Bryce as contingent remainder beneficiary if Lisa were to predecease Andrea. According to its terms, the Trust is to pay the income to Andrea for her life and "distribute all right, title, and interest the Grantor owns in the Grantor's condominium" in Silver Spring, Maryland. On the same day, Andrea executed a pour-over will devising her remaining assets to the revocable trust to be held and distributed according to the terms of the trust and naming Lisa and Julia as co-personal representatives.
Then, on August 29, 2018, shortly after her falling out with Amy, Andrea executed a Second Amended Trust Agreement naming Lisa as remainder beneficiary, with Lisa's heirs (i.e. , Julia and Emily) named as contingent remainder beneficiaries. The August 2018 Trust Agreement, currently in effect, includes a disinheritance clause that states:
After careful thought and consideration, the Grantor does specifically intend, and does hereby by this Trust Agreement, disinherit both AMY and BRYCE . For all purposes of this Trust, it shall be assumed that AMY and BRYCE have both predeceased the Grantor. Neither AMY nor BRYCE shall in any way be a beneficiary of or receive any portion of the Trust or the Grantor's estate.
(Emphasis in original).
At the same time, Andrea executed a second pour-over will devising all remaining assets to the revocable trust and adding a parallel clause disinheriting Amy and Bryce and providing that they "shall be deemed to have predeceased me." As with the 2016 pour-over will, the August 2018 will devises and bequeaths Andrea's residuary estate to the revocable trust to be held and distributed according to its terms. Effectively cut out of Andrea's estate and affairs, Amy initiated the current litigation.
On October 2, 2020, Amy filed her initial petition for guardianship over the person and property of Andrea in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The Petition included three counts seeking: (I) assumption of jurisdiction by the circuit court over the Virginia Trust, (II) guardianship over the person and property of Andrea, and (III) court-ordered visitation with Andrea.
Thereafter, while the guardianship proceeding was pending, on January 19, 2021, Amy filed an amended petition (the "First Amended Petition"). The First Amended Petition added a fourth count alleging that Lisa unduly influenced Andrea in the making of her estate planning documents. Amy requested that those documents "be declared null and void and/or revoked as a result of undue influence," and she sought damages in the amount of $75,000 without explanation. On February 2, 2021, Andrea...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Goicochea v. Goicochea
-
Ingram v. Cantwell-Cleary Co.
...has acted in bad faith or without substantial justification," it can "decline to impose sanctions, in the exercise of its discretion." 256 Md.App. 369, 412-13 (2022) (some internal citations omitted). --------- ...