## Facts

- Rose K. Lakatosh, an elderly woman in her seventies, lived alone and later was found to have a weakened intellect.
- In March 1988, Roger Jacobs, a non-relative, befriended Rose, visited daily, and became her helper and adviser for appointments and household matters.
- Roger arranged for Rose to execute a power of attorney naming him as attorney-in-fact.
- On November 11, 1988, Rose executed a new will leaving all but $1,000 of an estate valued at approximately $268,672.11 to Roger.
- The will and power of attorney were drafted by Roger’s second cousin, an attorney.
- From September 1988 to June 1990, Roger transferred $128,565.29 from Rose’s assets for his own benefit.
- By June 1990, Rose’s home was filthy and her bills were unpaid despite the depletion of her assets.
- A guardian for Rose’s estate petitioned for an accounting and a constructive trust (1990) and later sought revocation of the 1988 will for undue influence (1993).
- After a non-jury trial, the trial court revoked the 1988 will and imposed a constructive trust for $128,565.29; Roger appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence required revocation of the November 11, 1988 will as the product of undue influence.
2. Whether the trial court properly imposed a constructive trust of $128,565.29 on assets in Roger’s possession.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the order revoking the 1988 will and refusing probate.
- The court affirmed imposition of a constructive trust in the amount of $128,565.29.
- The court held the record contained legally competent evidence supporting findings that a confidential relationship existed, Roger received the bulk of the estate, and Rose’s intellect was weakened.
- The court held these showings shifted the burden to Roger to prove the absence of undue influence by clear and convincing evidence, and he failed to do so.
- Although Roger’s appellate statement of questions violated briefing rules, the court reached the merits rather than dismissing.

## Legal Principles

- In Pennsylvania will contests, undue influence is generally proved by the contestant after due execution is shown.
- The burden shifts to the will proponent to disprove undue influence by clear and convincing evidence when the contestant proves, by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a confidential relationship; (2) the proponent received the bulk of the estate; and (3) the testator’s intellect was weakened.
- A weakened intellect may exist even if the testator has sufficient capacity to execute a will; it can be shown through combined lay, medical, and circumstantial evidence of vulnerability and dependency.
- A power of attorney and demonstrated dependency are strong evidence of a confidential relationship.
- Equity may impose a constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment where a person abuses a confidential relationship to obtain and retain property.

## Conclusion

The court upheld revocation of a will that overwhelmingly benefited a non-relative who held the testator’s power of attorney and exploited her vulnerability, concluding that clear and convincing evidence triggered a presumption of undue influence that the proponent did not rebut, and that a constructive trust was warranted to recover misappropriated assets.


Estate of Lakatosh, 441 Pa. Super. 133, 656 A.2d 1378 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995)