## Facts

- William J. Moriarty (“William”) and Doreen Moriarty (“Doreen”) were married for 58 years and had two adult daughters, Catherine C. Moriarty (“Cathy”) and Paula A. Bowers (“Paula”).
- Cathy and Paula had long been closely involved with their parents, including helping with healthcare decisions and support.
- Over many years, William repeatedly stated that, consistent with his existing estate plan, his assets would be split equally between Cathy and Paula.
- Doreen died on April 1, 2016. After her death, William was diagnosed with congestive heart failure (CHF) and experienced anxiety and depression.
- Mary Eve Kassen Moriarty (“Eve”) met William through her involvement with a grief ministry at William’s church and began dating him within weeks of Doreen’s death.
- Once William began dating Eve, his regular communications with his daughters decreased; he cancelled a planned visit with Cathy and did not tell the daughters he was dating Eve.
- William and Eve married about six months after Doreen’s death. None of William’s close family members or friends were invited.
- After the marriage, William excluded Cathy and Paula from his medical care and decision-making, and Eve terminated William’s long-time home healthcare aide.
- In the months that followed, William engaged in multiple large, unusual financial transactions that benefited Eve.
- Eve arranged for William to sign a new will prepared by Eve’s attorney, Greg Cagnassola. Cagnassola did not meet William until the day the will was executed.
- In April 2017, William executed the new will leaving all of his assets to Eve, departing from his prior will and longstanding statements favoring an equal division between Cathy and Paula.
- William died in May 2017. Cathy and Paula obtained supervised administration of the estate and then pursued a will contest and a claim that Eve tortiously interfered with their expected inheritance.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Cathy and Paula to reopen their case-in-chief during a bench trial to call Eve as a witness.
2. Whether the trial court’s findings and conclusions that William lacked testamentary capacity when he executed the April 2017 will were clearly erroneous.
3. Whether the trial court’s findings and conclusions that the April 2017 will resulted from Eve’s undue influence were clearly erroneous.
4. Whether the trial court’s judgment that Eve tortiously interfered with Cathy’s and Paula’s inheritance expectancy was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting Cathy and Paula to reopen their case to call Eve; the decision was within the court’s control of the order of proof, and Eve had an opportunity to respond.
- The appellate court declined to reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility and held that the record supported the trial court’s determination that William lacked testamentary capacity at the time he signed the April 2017 will.
- The record also supported the trial court’s determination that Eve unduly influenced William in connection with the April 2017 will, including evidence of William’s vulnerability after Doreen’s death, his isolation from his daughters, and Eve’s involvement in procuring a will drafted by her attorney that made Eve the sole beneficiary.
- The appellate court further affirmed the trial court’s finding of tortious interference with inheritance, concluding that the evidence met the clear-and-convincing standard.
- As a result, probate of the April 2017 will was rejected, and judgment for Cathy and Paula on their tortious-interference claim remained in place.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court has broad discretion to control the presentation of evidence in a bench trial, including whether to allow a party to reopen its case-in-chief; reversal requires a showing of an abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice.
- On appeal from a bench trial with findings and conclusions, the reviewing court will not reweigh evidence or judge credibility and will set aside findings only if clearly erroneous.
- Testamentary capacity focuses on the testator’s mental condition at the time of execution; capacity generally requires understanding the nature and extent of one’s property, the natural objects of one’s bounty, and the effect of making the will.
- A will may be set aside when undue influence overcomes the testator’s free agency; relevant proof may include the testator’s weakness or dependence, the beneficiary’s opportunity and active participation in procuring the will, isolation of the testator from family, and an unnatural or abrupt change from a longstanding plan.
- Tortious interference with an inheritance expectancy requires proof of an expected inheritance, intentional interference through wrongful conduct, causation, and damages; Indiana courts apply a clear-and-convincing evidence standard in this setting.

## Conclusion

*Moriarty v. Moriarty* upheld a trial court’s rejection of a late-life will that left everything to a new spouse, where evidence showed the decedent’s post-bereavement health and mental-health struggles, his sudden isolation from his daughters, the spouse’s control over care and finances, and the spouse’s role in arranging execution of a will drafted by her own attorney; the court also affirmed liability for tortious interference with the daughters’ expected inheritance.


Moriarty v. Moriarty, 150 N.E.3d 616 (2020)