How Do I Contest a Will for Fraud?
Full Question:
Answer:
Fraud involves a knowingly made misrespresentation that is intended to cause another to rely and act on it to their harm. Courts have held that a party may rescind a contract for fraud, incapacity, duress, undue influence, material breach in performance of a promise, or mistake, among other grounds. In order to prove a fraud claim, it must be shown that the defendant had an intent to deceive. If deception was used to induce another to rely on a promise and such reliance caused harm, it is possible to recover damages. Fraud may be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.
The answer will be a matter of subjective determination for the court, based on all the facts and circumstances involved. I'm unclear on how this account was dealt with in the will. A person must have rightful ownership to property to leave it in his will. A will must be prepared and properly executed (signed and witnessed by a certain number of competent witnesses) while a person still has legal or testamentary capacity. A person must execute a will while he or she has full control over his or her mental functions. If a person waits until he or she suffers an accident or an illness, it could be too late. Testamentary capacity means the maker understands the nature of making a will, has a general idea of what he/she possesses, and knows who are the members of the immediate family or other "natural objects of his/her bounty". Testamentary capacity requires freedom from delusion which is the effect of disease or weakness and which might influence the disposition of his property. Also, it requires ability at the time of execution of the alleged will to comprehend the nature of the act of making a will.
A will is most likely to be challenged by someone claiming that the will was not properly written, signed or witnessed, or did not meet the state's formal requirements; the decedent lacked mental capacity at the time the will was executed; the decedent was a victim of fraud, force, or undue influence; or the will is a forgery. If a will contest is successful, the entire document may be thrown out. Alternatively, the probate court may reject only the part of the will that was challenged. If the entire will is disallowed, the court will distribute the decedent's property as if the person died without a will. If possible, the court may use a previous will, but such action will depend on state law and the facts and circumstances of the case. Will contests are not uncommon, but few people actually win one. They can be very expensive and create lengthy delays in the distribution of an estate's assets. A person must have legal "standing" to object to a will. What constitutes standing is determined by state law, but generally it means someone who either is a party mentioned in a will or perhaps should have been a party to the will based on a legal relationship to the decedent.
A bequest in a will is typically considered a gift that may be freely revoked by the will maker. In some cases, a person may make a legally enforceable contract to leave a person a bequest in a will in exchange for services provided or other value received. However, contracts involving real property that cannot be performed within one year are typically required to be in writing.
The court may also declare that a constructive trust exists, which is essentially a legal fiction designed to avoid injustice and prevent giving an unfair advantage to one of the parties. This may be based on the contributions made by one partner to the property of the other. The court typically requires a finding of unjust enrichment before it will impose a constructive trust. Each case is decided on its own facts, taking all circumstances into consideration.
The doctrine of unjust enrichment is based upon the principle that one should not be permitted unjustly to enrich himself at the expense of another but should be required to make restitution of or for property received, retained or appropriated. The general rule is that a payment of money under a mistake of fact may be recovered provided that such payment will not prejudice the payee. It is considered unjust enrichment to permit a recipient to retain money paid because of a mistake, unless the circumstances are such that it would be inequitable to require its return. This applies even if the mistake is one on one side (unilateral) and a consequence of the payors negligence, or that the payee acted in good faith. "A person who has conferred a benefit on another by mistake is not precluded from maintaining an action for restitution by the fact that the mistake was due to his lack of care." (Restatement of Restitution § 59.) Equity, which is based on notions of fairness, often allows a person who pays money to another under the mistaken belief a valid contract exists to recover that money when the contract is subsequently canceled for fraud or mistake and the rights of innocent parties have not intervened. (Restatement of Restitution §§ 17, 28.)
A constructive trust is one that arises by operation of law against one who, by fraud, wrongdoing, or any other unconscionable conduct, either has obtained or holds legal right to property which he ought not to, in good conscience, keep and enjoy. A constructive trust is an appropriate remedy against unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment is present in nearly every case where a constructive trust is imposed. However, the court's creation of a constructive trust is not necessarily dependent on a finding that the person whose property is subjected to it has acted wrongly, but may rest as well upon a finding of unjust enrichment arising from other circumstances that "render it inequitable for the party holding the title to retain it." (Starleper v. Hamilton 106 Md.App. 632, 666 A.2d 867 (1995).)
The basis for creating a constructive trust is to prevent unjust enrichment. (Restatement of Restitution § 160, comment c.) "Where a person wrongfully disposes of property of another knowing that the disposition is wrongful and acquires in exchange other property, the other is entitled to enforce a constructive trust of the property so acquired." If the property so acquired is or becomes more valuable than the property used in acquiring it, the profit thus made by the wrongdoer cannot be retained by him; the person whose property was used in making the profit is entitled to it." (Restatement Restitution § 202.) When property is given or devised to a defendant in breach of a donor's or testator's contract with a plaintiff, equity will impose a constructive trust upon that property being held by another even though (1) the transfer is not the result of breach of a fiduciary duty or an actual or constructive fraud practiced upon the plaintiff, and (2) the donee or devisee had no knowledge of the wrongdoing or breach of contract. (Jones v. Harrison , 250 Va. 64, 458 S.E.2d 766 (1995 ).)
A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another may be required to make restitution to the other. Despite not having a contractual agreement, a trial court may require an individual to make restitution for unjust enrichment if he has received a benefit which would be unconscionable to retain. A person may be deemed to be unjustly enriched if he (or she) has received a benefit, and keeping it would create injustice.
Please see the information at the following links:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fraud
http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/scheme-or-artifice-to-defraud/
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/misrepresentation/
Please see the forms at the following links:
