CALIFORNIA PROBATE CENTER

The Authority for Probate Litigation and Estate Planning in California

Two Year Up Hill Probate Battle Over Author’s Estate Ends in Settlement Just Days Before Trial

Posted on | December 29, 2010 | No Comments

After a difficult two year battle between the heirs of well known Vermont author and illustrator Tasha Tudor, a private settlement was reached just days before the probate trial was going to take place. The battle began when Tasha’s original will was changed so that most of her $2 million dollar estate, including her copyrights, would go to only her oldest son Seth and his children. The original will was drafted in 2001 which called for most of her assets to be split among her two sons (Thomas and Seth) and Seth’s son, Winslow Tudor. However, in 2002 Seth allegedly exercised undue influence over his mother which led to her amending her will so that her son Thomas was virtually locked out of any inheritance. The amended will leave son Thomas with nothing but an antique highboy and left only $1,000 to each of the Author’s daughters.

After this two year uphill battle in which Thomas contended in court papers and with witness testimony that Seth in fact did exercise undue influence over his mother, the battle finally settled. The terms of the settlement were kept private and the parties agreed that they were all happy the deadlock was resolved. Seth still claims that no undue influence was ever exercised over his mother, however he did choose to settle in the final minutes before trial was to begin.

The first main issue that was to be resolved at trial was whether undue influence would be presumed based on Seth’s close relationship with his mother or not. Thomas, as the challenger of the 2002 amended will, would hold the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) that the amendment in 2002 was in fact a product of undue influence by Seth. This procedure was established in the case of the In re Estate of Lena A. Raedel in 1989 in Vermont. The undue influence doctrine was developed to protect the true intent of the testator (Tasha Tudor). Courts generally defer to the express intent written in a will, but when a challenge of undue influence is asserted courts allow evidence to be presented to determine that what the will expresses was in fact the true intent of the testator. However, in similar Vermont cases it has been established that the ultimate burden of persuasion on the issue of undue influence may sometimes shift. “A presumption of undue influence may arise in cases where (1) the benefiting party was in a ‘confidential relationship’ with the testator, and (2) there were ‘suspicious circumstances’ surrounding the preparation, formation, or execution of the will.” Eckstein, 174 Vt. at 579; In re Will of Collins, 114 Vt. 523, 533, 49 A.2d 111 (1946); Restatement (Third) of Property–Wills and Donative Transfers § 8.3.

In a recent 2009 Vermont opinion, In re: Estate of Orville Tucker, it was found that where a child of a testator is also the legal guardian and a challenge of undue influence is asserted the burden of proving that undue influence did not exist is on that guardian. If Seth Tudor was in fact also considered the legal guardian of his mother, going to court may have been very bad for him. If his brother Thomas could establish that Seth was the legal guardian of Tasha Tudor then Seth would have been the one in the hot seat having to prove that he never in fact unduly influenced his mother in amending her will. Maybe this issue is what prompted Seth to settle just days before trial was to begin.

Seth Tudor’s property adjoined his mother’s and he ran “Tasha Tudor and Family”, a business that sells her books, greeting cards and home furnishing accessories. A life-long friend of Tasha Tudor named Amelia Stauffer who spoke to Tasha almost everyday stepped forward on Thomas’s behalf. Her testimony revealed enlightening information that spoke to Seth denying his mother telephone access, forcing his mother to wear shoes with holes in them, letting Tasha go cold because she didn’t have enough fire wood and letting her prescriptions go unfilled because “she didn’t need them”. All of these things were allegedly done by Seth because he wanted to save his mother’s money. It seems interesting that Seth had such obvious control over his mother’s finances and life in general and yet claims to have not been involved in the drafting of either will. It also seems peculiar that when push came to shove and the case against Seth was about to go to trial he suddenly decided to settle. The fact is because this did not go to trial we may never know the true facts of what influence Seth may or may not have exercised over his mother, Tasha. One things for sure though, had this gone to trial the testimony against Seth along with his “confidential” relationship with his mother may have been key in establishing that Tasha’s amended will was in fact a product of undue influence.

- Authored by Marissa Sirota

Category: Trust and Estate Litigation
Tags: > > > > >

Comments

Comments are closed.