Stanek v. Stanek
| Decision Date | 12 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2018-CA-39 |
| Citation | 2019 Ohio 2841 |
| Parties | DANIEL G. STANEK, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants v. EDMUND D. STANEK, et al. Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
(Civil Appeal from Probate Court)
OPINIONJUD R. MAUGER, Atty. Reg. No. 0063375 and GREGORY P. BARWELL, Atty. Reg. No. 0070545, 100 E. Broad Street, Suite 2350, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants
PETER R. CERTO, JR., Atty. Reg. No. 0018880, One South Main Street, Suite 1590, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendants-Appellees
{¶ 1} This appeal arises from a dispute among siblings about their father's estate. Appellants, Daniel Stanek, Arlene Bottenfield, and Rosemarie Keenan appeal from a judgment upholding the will and a transfer on death beneficiary designation made by Edmund E. Stanek, and finding that Appellee, Edmund D. Stanek, did not exercise undue influence over his father.1
{¶ 2} In challenging the judgment, Appellants have raised five assignments of error. Essentially, they contend that the trial court abused its discretion and that the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 3} For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the trial court did not err in rejecting Appellants' attempt to challenge the validity of the will and transfer on death beneficiary designation due to lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The court's judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
{¶ 4} As a preliminary matter, we note that our recitation of facts relies primarily on the testimony of Appellants, because the trial court stated that:
All the witnesses at trial were credible, except Defendant [Ed]. They projected a calm, respectful, and confident demeanor. They were responsive to questions. * * *Defendant lacked any credibility whatsoever. His testimony was deceptive and was peppered with snide and argumentative comments. He was arrogant, flippant and evasive. Even when others were testifying, Defendant's body language was purposely distractive, rolling his eyes and shooting looks of disbelief when others were testifying. His previous blatant lie to this Court in an earlier hearing - stating that the Merrill Lynch accounts had been nearly depleted - tainted everything he said during trial. Words cannot describe the horrible impression Defendant made on the Court.
Doc. #82, Decision and Judgment Entry, p. 6.
{¶ 5} The decedent, Edmund E. Stanek, was born in 1924 and died on February 1, 2017, at age 92. He and his wife had four children: Daniel, Arlene, Rosemarie, and Ed. In 1986, Stanek executed a will naming his wife, Maria, as his sole beneficiary. In the event that Maria predeceased him, each child was to be given an equal share of the assets. If one of the children also predeceased Stanek, his or her share lapsed and was to be distributed equally to the remaining children. Maria was named executrix, and in the event of her death, Ed was named as executor. If Ed could not serve, Daniel was to be the executor.
{¶ 6} In 1996, Stanek sent Daniel, Arlene, and Rosemarie a letter listing an enormous amount of money that he and his wife had spent on Ed. The list was titled "Expenditures for Ed's Domestic Violence w/Firearm + Divorce Cases," and disclosed more than $43,000 in expenses that had been paid. Plaintiff's Ex. 2, pp. 2-4. The letter further stated that Id. at p. 1.
{¶ 7} In March 2000, Stanek executed a First Codicil to his will. At that time, Maria had been recently diagnosed with Alzheimer's, but was still capable. Due to the progressive nature of her disease, however, the family had been advised to change paperwork for the will. The codicil designated Daniel as executor; if he were unable to serve, Arlene and Rosemarie were to serve as co-executrixes. Daniel made up packets containing the last will and testament and codicil, along with a power of attorney, and everyone received a packet. In November 2000, Stanek also sent Daniel and Arlene a detailed list of all of his and Maria's property, including their residences, income property, checking and savings account numbers, insurance policy numbers, life insurance information, IRA information, and the like.
{¶ 8} At the time of Maria's diagnosis, Stanek and Maria lived in Cleveland and also owned a condo in Florida. Ed had lived with them in Cleveland for significant periods of time, including after his 1976 divorce; during the late 1980's; and during and after his second divorce, from around 1996 to 2001. In the 2000-2001 time-frame, Arlene had discussions with her parents about moving to Dayton, Ohio, where she lived. This was due to Maria's Alzheimer's diagnosis and the desire to keep Maria at home. As a result, Stanek and Maria came to Dayton in 2001 to look at properties. They then built a condo and moved into it in April 2002.
{¶ 9} Ed lived with Maria and Stanek in their Cleveland house until it was sold. When Maria and Stanek moved to Dayton from Cleveland, they told Daniel to tell Ed that he was not expected and was not welcome to move with them to Dayton. Subsequently, Ed moved in with Arlene and lived with her for several months.
{¶ 10} After the move and until 2005, Maria and Stanek were living on their own with some assistance from Arlene, who typically went over every day, first to make sure Maria got up, and then in the evening, to make meals. After Stanek had surgery in 2005, Ed and his girlfriend/fiancée moved in with his parents. During that time, Stanek paid the girlfriend about $1,500 per week to compensate for her lost income. While these payments were anticipated to be made only for a short time, they lasted longer due to Stanek's illness. Ed did not specifically say at trial how long this lasted, but his comments in medical records indicate that his fiancée left after a couple of years, which would have been sometime in 2007. See Plaintiff's Ex. 1.
{¶ 11} In September 2007, Ed was arrested and removed from his parents' home after assaulting his father. Shortly after the incident, Ed returned to get his belongings. Arlene and her husband were there, and her parents were outside the house. At that time, Ed said to Arlene and her husband: "you think this -- this is all about money; and if you think you're going to get away with me being gone, I'll make sure that you don't see a penny of dad's money ever." Transcript of Bench Trial, ("Tr. 1"), p. 182. During the six to eight months that Ed was gone, the family had home care, and Arlene was also there daily to care for her mother. At that time, the care was for Maria; Stanek did not really need care.
{¶ 12} In 2008, Ed returned to his parents' home. According to Arlene, Ed was living in a breezeway of another home and asked his father if he could move back in. Ed claimed, in contrast, that his father "begged" him to come back. In any event, Ed returned and remained in the home until February 2017, when his father died. Maria had previously died on June 4, 2012.
{¶ 13} From 2005 until his death, Stanek had a number of hospitalizations and medical problems, including bladder and prostate cancer; a triple bypass; diabetes; essential hypertension; anemia; a cholecystectomy in July 2010 with a complicated post-operative course, including respiratory failure and cardiac arrest; delirium in September 2010 due to conditions classified elsewhere; chronic kidney disease; MRSA in a sternal incision; loss of peripheral vision due to stroke; retinopathy; a cataract; mild cognitive impairment; and a hearing impairment. Stanek was also overweight and had significant mobility issues. In February 2012, the medical notes indicate that Stanek was not capable of managing his medications and that he was "[i]ncapable of handling money." Plaintiff's Ex. 1 at p. 2. These issues remained the same throughout the rest of Stanek's life.2
{¶ 14} In 2014 alone, Stanek had several hospitalizations. On April 30, 2014, he had a gastrointestinal bleed and lost six pints of blood. During the hospitalization, he had three cardiac arrests, was sent to Kindred Care from May 16 to June 4, 2014, and was then sent to Dayton Rehab, where he remained until around the last week of June 2014. See Defendant's Ex. D.
{¶ 15} On June 4, 2015, Stanek signed several documents that had been prepared by Attorney Pete Rife. These included: (1) a last will and testament, which made Ed the sole beneficiary of Stanek's estate and effectively disinherited the other siblings; (2) a living will (naming Ed as first in priority to be notified if an attending physician determinedthat life-sustaining treatment should be withheld; Arlene was listed second); (3) a power of attorney granting Ed the power to act on Stanek's behalf concerning all his affairs; and (4) a durable power of attorney for health care granting Ed the power to act in all health care decisions, and rejecting the designation of an alternate beneficiary. See Plaintiff's Exs. 3, 5, 6, and 7. In addition, Stanek brought a Merrill Lynch power of attorney form to Rife's office. This form had already been filled in. Stanek signed this power of attorney as well, giving Ed the power to withdraw and transfer any amount of money from Stanek's account to himself or to third parties. See Plaintiff's Ex. 4. Notably, the new will and other documents were signed on the anniversary of Maria's death, which was a significant day for Stanek.
{¶ 16} Rife had virtually no recollection of the transaction. His paralegal, who prepared the documents, indicated that they were prepared and signed very quickly, within a day or so after the office was contacted. No copies of any documents were sent to Appellants, nor did Ed ever notify them of any changes...
To continue reading
Request your trial