## Facts

- Alice R. Sharis, an elderly woman with limited formal education, had three daughters and many grandchildren.
- Her grandson, Richard Spinelli, moved into Alice’s home in 2003 and remained there through her death in 2010; he provided transportation but did not contribute financially to the household.
- Between 2006 and 2008, Spinelli obtained near-complete control over Alice’s and her husband’s checking account and signed the husband’s name on numerous checks; Alice complained that she did not know where her money or checks were.
- In 2007, Alice executed a durable power of attorney prepared by Spinelli that became effective immediately and granted him broad authority; he did not disclose it to other family members.
- In 2008, Spinelli contacted an attorney to draft Alice’s will; the attorney had only a brief phone conversation with Alice, and the drafting associate communicated only with Spinelli and never spoke to Alice.
- Alice executed the will in July 2008 at a nursing home, witnessed by staff; Spinelli brought her to the facility but stayed outside the room.
- The will gave Spinelli the house and its contents and Alice’s stocks and securities if her husband predeceased her (as happened), while leaving certain bank accounts to the daughters and dividing the residue among the daughters and Spinelli.
- After execution, Spinelli opened an account in his name in trust for Alice and her husband, transferred substantial funds into it, and made expenditures that interfered with the will’s bank-account bequests.
- The power of attorney, will, and trust account were kept secret from Alice’s daughters and other relatives until after Alice’s death.

## Issues

1. Whether Spinelli’s role as a fiduciary with broad power of attorney and control over the decedent’s finances shifted to him the burden to prove the will was not the product of undue influence.
2. Whether the evidence supported the finding that the will resulted from undue influence, warranting disallowance.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court affirmed the Probate and Family Court’s judgment disallowing the will.
- The court upheld the finding that Spinelli stood in a fiduciary relationship to Alice based on the durable power of attorney and his control over her finances.
- Because a fiduciary beneficiary benefited from the transaction, Spinelli bore the burden to prove the will was not the product of undue influence.
- The court concluded Spinelli failed to carry that burden; circumstantial evidence supported an inference of undue influence.
- The court did not reach testamentary capacity because undue influence independently justified disallowance.

## Legal Principles

- When a fiduciary benefits from a transaction with the principal, the fiduciary must prove the transaction was fair and not the product of undue influence.
- Undue influence may be established by circumstantial evidence; direct proof of coercion or proof of personal appropriation of assets is not required.
- Lack of independent legal advice, secrecy from natural heirs, and the fiduciary’s control of the testator’s finances may support an inference of undue influence.
- Appellate review gives substantial deference to a probate judge’s factfinding, credibility determinations, and reasonable inferences from the evidence.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Court affirmed disallowance of the decedent’s will because the primary beneficiary occupied a fiduciary position, controlled the decedent’s finances, orchestrated the estate planning without meaningful independent counsel, and engaged in secretive financial conduct, collectively supporting a finding of undue influence.


In re Estate of Sharis, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 839, 990 N.E.2d 98 (2013)