On April 2nd we are holding a free lunchtime webinar to discuss the true cost of going to trial. Understand what going to trial really means: the financial, emotional, and time costs most people don’t anticipate. Register now.
Few things are more painful than discovering a parent has been manipulated in their final years. I’ve worked with families who watched helplessly as warning signs appeared (unanswered phone calls, sudden isolation, unexplained financial changes) only to face a will that seems unfair. Challenging a will can be a difficult process and requires a careful legal strategy. But when the evidence is there, families deserve to have their voices heard.
This is the story of two siblings who discovered they had been disinherited from their father’s estate after months of concerning behavior from their sister, who had gradually isolated their father and positioned herself as the sole beneficiary of his assets. It is a classic example of how a will contest can proceed.
Background
Robert, a retired electrical engineer in his eighties, lived in Colorado. After losing his wife Margaret a few years earlier, Robert began experiencing early signs of cognitive decline. He had three adult children: Sarah, who lived out of state and visited twice a year; David, who worked in Colorado and saw his father monthly; and Jennifer, a nurse who had remained unmarried and lived fifteen minutes from Robert.
Robert and Margaret had previously created an estate plan that divided their assets equally among all three children, which had been in place for over a decade.
The Challenge
In my experience, isolation is often the first red flag. During the months leading up to Robert’s death, David and Sarah began noticing worrying patterns. Jennifer had started to control access to their father. Phone calls to Robert went unanswered, with Jennifer explaining that their father was resting or having a difficult day and would return the call later—but Robert never called back. When David made unannounced visits, Jennifer appeared flustered and made excuses to limit the time of the visit. Robert appeared thinner, quieter, and increasingly confused.
David also observed that Jennifer was driving a new Lexus SUV, despite having mentioned financial problems just six months earlier. When asked, Jennifer just said that their father had helped her out. This raised immediate concerns about potential financial exploitation, particularly given Robert’s declining cognitive state.
When Robert mentioned during one of David’s brief visits that he wanted to update his estate plan, David offered to help locate an attorney. Jennifer immediately said that she had already arranged an appointment with an estate planning lawyer. She refused to share any details about the new planning or allow David or Sarah to see the documents, insisting the matter was private and their father did not want to discuss it.
By Thanksgiving, Jennifer had moved into Robert’s home, according to her, to provide better care. She accompanied him to all medical appointments, attended meetings with his financial advisor, and was present during the estate planning attorney’s visit.
When Robert passed away in January following a sudden decline, Jennifer made all the funeral arrangements without consulting her siblings and sat apart from them at the service. Two weeks after the funeral, David and Sarah received copies of Robert’s will.
The family home in Colorado had been transferred to Jennifer via a beneficiary deed, and Robert’s investment accounts listed Jennifer as the sole beneficiary. These beneficiary designations had been changed just four months before Robert’s death. David and Sarah were each left a small amount of money. The will, dated eight months prior, offered no explanation for this dramatic change from the equal distribution Robert and Margaret had always intended.
The Approach
Immediately after receiving the will, David hired an attorney. The legal team carefully reviewed the timeline of events, the pattern of isolation, Jennifer’s involvement in the estate planning process, and the dramatic changes to beneficiary designations. What emerged was a clear pattern consistent with undue influence under Colorado law.
Under Colorado law, when a person takes an active role in procuring a will that overwhelmingly benefits them, a presumption of undue influence arises. This means the beneficiary must demonstrate that the will was not the result of undue influence. The evidence in this case created a strong foundation for such a presumption.
The attorney provided David and Sarah with a realistic assessment of what lay ahead. Will contests typically require $50,000 to $100,000 in legal fees per party and can take years to resolve. The process would involve securing medical expert testimony regarding Robert’s cognitive state, gathering evidence of undue influence, and potentially proceeding to a full trial.
Under Colorado’s Dead Man Statute, David and Sarah themselves could not testify about what their father wanted, as the will must speak for the testator. However, neutral third parties who did not benefit from the estate could provide testimony about Robert’s wishes and mental state.
Rather than immediately filing for trial, the attorney crafted a detailed demand letter outlining the evidence of undue influence and the strength of David and Sarah’s case. The letter proposed mediation as a cost-effective alternative to litigation. This strategic approach recognized that beneficiaries in Jennifer’s position often prefer to settle and retain a portion of the estate rather than face the uncertainty, expense, and potential reputational damage of a public trial. The demand letter specifically highlighted the presumption of undue influence that would apply given Jennifer’s active role in obtaining the will, placing the burden on her to disprove the charges of influence.
Jennifer, after consulting with her attorney, recognized the significant risk she faced at trial. The documented evidence of isolation, her involvement in estate planning, Robert’s cognitive decline, and the dramatic changes to beneficiary designations created a compelling case for undue influence. She agreed to participate in mediation. Over several sessions facilitated by a neutral mediator, the parties negotiated a resolution that acknowledged the strength of the evidence while avoiding the cost and uncertainty of a trial.
The Result
The mediation resulted in a settlement agreement that was very different from the will. Jennifer retained the family home. The investment accounts were divided, with Jennifer receiving 50 percent while David and Sarah each received 25 percent. This settlement represented a significant improvement from the minimal amount each sibling would have received under the original will.
While no amount of money can undo the pain of watching a parent manipulated in their final months, David and Sarah found some measure of peace knowing they had fought for what their father would have wanted. More importantly, they honored the values Robert and Margaret had shared throughout their marriage—that all three children mattered equally.
How We Can Help
If you’re concerned about a loved one’s estate plan or suspect undue influence, I’m here to help you understand your options. These situations are never easy, but you don’t have to navigate them alone. Let’s talk about your situation and explore the best path forward for your family. Call 720-457-4573 or email info@rockymtnelderlaw.com.
On April 2nd we are holding a free lunchtime webinar to discuss the true cost of going to trial. Understand what going to trial really means: the financial, emotional, and time costs most people don’t anticipate. Register now.
