Estate of Vess (2017) & Complex Caveat Proceedings

In estate law, a “caveat proceeding” is a proceeding which involves one party coming forward to either challenge a particular aspect of a will or to prevent a certain action being taken with respect to a will, such as the admission of a will to probate court. We’ve talked about challenging wills in the past, but we haven’t discussed this topic in great detail. Wills may be challenged on various grounds: a party may claim that the testator lacked the capacity to create the will for one reason or another; or, a party may claim that a given person – say, the personal representative of the will – exercised “undue” or unacceptable influence over the testator during the will’s development. When a will is challenged, this can set off a complex litigation battle as interested parties attempt to resolve the challenge in their favor.

In the case of Estate of Vess (2017) – or, more precisely, the slew of cases associated with the will of Howard L. Vess – a niece of the testator tried to challenge the validity of the will by citing multiple grounds (i.e. the testator lacked testamentary capacity, the genuineness of the testator’s signature, etc.). This challenge was battled by the personal representative appointed through the will. What transpired following this challenge was a series of legal procedures which ended up taking many years to resolve. Let’s explore this complex case a bit to get a sense of what can occur in will challenges.

‍

Facts of the Case

Howard Vess, the testator, passed away at the age of 89 in 2011. Mr. Vess was a widower, his wife having predeceased him in 2006. After his wife’s death in 2006, Mr. Vess consulted with an attorney to draft a new will; Mr. Vess had drafted multiple wills prior to his wife’s death, and his wife was always a primary beneficiary. Now, with his wife passed, a new will was necessary, and this new will superseded all wills and codicils developed in the past.

‍

The will drafted in 2006 – The Last Will and Testament of Howard L. Vess, dated August 11, 2006 – appointed Robert Price as the personal representative. Claudia Vess, a niece of Mr. Vess, came forward soon after Mr. Vess passed away in 2011 to challenge the validity of the 2006 will. In addition, Claudia petitioned that the previous wills be declared valid; her standing in the case was based on whatever she might derive from the previous wills and from intestacy law. Claudia argued the following: that Mr. Vess lacked testamentary capacity at the time of the will’s creation, that the signature was not valid on the final will, that the will was not witnessed or executed properly, that the will was procured by fraud, and that the will was procured by the exercise of undue influence.

‍

In response to Claudia’s petition, Mr. Price initially tried to argue that she lacked standing because she was actually not a beneficiary under any previous will – thus, if she succeeded in having any previous will validated, she stood to gain nothing. The court ultimately rejected this argument made by Mr. Price, however, and Claudia’s standing was certified.  

‍

Ruling & Discussion

Claudia tried to obtain an order of default against Mr. Price based on his alleged untimely response to her petition. This order of default against Mr. Price was granted, but was then subsequently overturned because the appellate court determined that Mr. Price’s response within his motion qualified as a response to Claudia’s petition. Claudia exerted copious efforts to reverse this determination to overturn the default judgment, but she was ultimately unsuccessful.

‍

Based on the information contained in the opinion written by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, we can see that the court spent considerable time and energy unraveling all the complex legal and procedural issues involved in Claudia’s case. The court’s final opinion was that the case would proceed back to the trial court for determination based on the actual issues as referenced in Claudia’s petition. The case wouldn’t be decided on a technicality, as Claudia hoped in the early stages of litigation.

‍

What this case shows, among many other things, is that parties planning to challenge a will need to obtain an attorney who is well versed in the procedural rules of caveat proceedings.

‍

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

To learn more about caveat proceedings in the State of Maryland, procedural matters associated with the Orphan’s Court, challenging a will, intestacy laws in Maryland, or any other estate planning matter, contact one of the estate planning attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.

‍