In Rochalski v. Sklodowski, Case No. 10-P-1750, 2012
Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 12 (Jan. 6, 2012), a decision issued
pursuant to Rule 1:28, the Appeals Court affirmed the probate
court's judgment voiding certain transactions on grounds of
lack of capacity and undue influence.
The decedent's native language was Polish, with her knowledge
of English being limited. She also suffered from mental illnesses,
among them hoarding. Despite these limitations, she was able to
accumulate a considerable estate, including a six-family
residential building in Boston.
The decedent lived in an apartment on the property until 2002, when
the building was condemned and put into receivership. The decedent
contested the receivership and became embroiled in legal
proceedings in an attempt to rehabilitate the property. She was
assisted by an attorney, her guardian, and the defendant, who acted
as the decedent's interpreter. The attorney developed a plan
for the property that required the decedent to deed one-half of her
interest to a developer, who would rehabilitate the property and
then allow the decedent to live in one of the apartments rent-free
for the remainder of her life. The defendant intervened, however,
persuading the decedent to deed the entire property to him for one
dollar.
Thereafter, the defendant rehabilitated the property but rented the
apartment meant for the decedent to a third party. The defendant
also assumed control of the decedent's finances, using a
general power of attorney to withdraw money from the decedent's
accounts and cashing her Social Security checks, and isolated her
from her family and guardian. Moreover, the defendant arranged for
the decedent to execute a new will, which the defendant hand-wrote,
naming himself as executor and the beneficiary of almost the entire
estate.
The defendant admitted that he had emptied the decedent's
accounts, but argued that he did so at the decedent's request.
He also claimed that he sent $150,000 to a purported guard who had
allegedly helped the decedent escape from a concentration camp in
Siberia, even though the defendant conceded that he did not believe
this had actually happened.
After trial, the probate court found the decedent had been
incompetent and the victim of undue influence, voiding the deed,
invalidating the will, and ordering the defendant to return funds
to the decedent's estate. The probate court also found that the
defendant had violated his common law duties associated with a
power of attorney, including by sending $150,000 to a person whose
identity the defendant himself had questioned. The Appeals Court
affirmed on all counts, and further ordered the defendant to pay
the plaintiff administratrix's costs and fees on appeal
pursuant to Rule 25 of the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
