## Facts

- Cornelia K. Mampe had three daughters: Quina Nelling, Louise Patejdl, and Cirlot Truncellito.
- In 1992, Cornelia executed a will dividing her estate equally among the three daughters.
- In 1993, Cornelia signed a codicil modifying Cirlot’s share and making provisions for Cirlot’s children, and she executed a power of attorney naming Quina as her agent.
- In September 2001, after a car accident, Cornelia moved into Sunrise Assisted Living in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
- Cornelia was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s dementia, and family members observed increasing confusion and memory problems before the 2002 estate-plan changes.
- Quina visited Cornelia daily, managed Cornelia’s personal affairs and finances, and Cornelia lived largely according to Quina’s directions.
- Louise and Cirlot testified that Quina restricted their contact with Cornelia and limited their ability to see or communicate with her.
- On May 7, 2002, Cornelia executed a new will and related documents, including a revocable trust agreement (with Cornelia and Quina as co-trustees) and a new power of attorney.
- Under the 2002 will, Cornelia left all tangible personal property to Quina and left the real property and residuary estate to the trust.
- The 2002 trust provided that, at Cornelia’s death, Louise would receive 10% of the trust remainder and Quina would receive the balance; Cirlot was excluded.
- In 2002, Cornelia also made inter vivos transfers to Quina totaling over $800,000 in value.
- In 2004, Louise and Cirlot learned the terms of the 2002 will and trust and filed a challenge in the Orphans’ Court alleging undue influence by Quina.
- The drafting attorney, Charles Durante, testified that Cornelia appeared to understand her family relationships, her assets, and how she wanted them distributed at the signing meeting, but the trial court credited Louise’s and Cirlot’s testimony and other evidence of cognitive decline.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the Orphans’ Court’s findings that (a) Quina had a confidential relationship with Cornelia, (b) Cornelia had a weakened intellect, and (c) Quina received a substantial benefit, creating a presumption of undue influence as to the 2002 will and revocable trust.
2. Whether Quina rebutted the presumption by clear and convincing evidence that the 2002 will and trust reflected Cornelia’s free and voluntary intent.
3. Whether the Superior Court should disturb the Orphans’ Court’s credibility determinations and fact findings in an undue-influence challenge.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the declaratory judgment entered by the Orphans’ Court invalidating the May 7, 2002 will and revocable trust.
- The court held the record supported findings of a confidential relationship, Cornelia’s weakened intellect in the relevant period, and a substantial benefit to Quina under the 2002 plan (including large lifetime transfers).
- Because those elements were shown, the presumption of undue influence applied and the burden shifted to Quina.
- The court concluded Quina did not carry her burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the 2002 dispositions were Cornelia’s free act, and it declined to reweigh evidence or revisit credibility calls made by the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- A presumption of undue influence arises when the contestant proves: (1) a confidential relationship between the testator/settlor and the proponent, (2) a weakened intellect, and (3) a substantial benefit to the proponent.
- When the presumption applies, the burden shifts to the proponent to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the challenged instrument was the product of the testator’s/settlor’s free will and not undue influence.
- “Weakened intellect” is a condition of significant mental impairment increasing susceptibility to influence; it does not require a finding of total incapacity.
- A person may have sufficient testamentary capacity yet still be subject to undue influence.
- On appeal, the Superior Court reviews for legal error or abuse of discretion and gives substantial deference to the Orphans’ Court’s fact finding and credibility determinations.

## Conclusion

The Superior Court affirmed the Orphans’ Court’s declaratory judgment setting aside Cornelia Mampe’s May 7, 2002 will and revocable trust because the evidence supported a confidential relationship, weakened intellect, and substantial benefit to Quina Nelling, creating a presumption of undue influence that Quina failed to rebut by clear and convincing proof.


In re Mampe, 932 A.2d 954 (2007)