Iver Martin Villa spent most of his life on his family homestead outside of Meeker, Colorado. He married his wife Mary and raised two children, Mary K. Krueger and John Villa, on the ranch. Marlyn Ary started working for the Villas as a part-time

Question

housekeeper in the mid-1970s. When Mary Villa died suddenly from a brain tumor in 1989, Ary stayed on, providing the same services for Iver Villa. The two became friends. In the mid-1990s, Villa's health began to decline. He suffered from multiple ailments, including emphysema, congestive heart failure, and macular degeneration. Ary started acting as Villa's paid caregiver in addition to being his housekeeper. She assisted Villa by administering his medication, reconciling his bank accounts, filling out and helping him sign his checks, reading him his legal and financial documents, and transporting him to his various appointments. In 1997, Villa executed a will leaving his estate to Krueger and her children. But in 2001, Villa began construction on a new house, and in April 2003, Villa conveyed an interest in the completed house and the parcel of land it occupied, worth $350,000, to Ary by executing a deed for joint tenancy. After making the conveyance, Villa told multiple people he was worried Krueger would try to overturn it. While in the hospital in November 2004, Villa wrote Ary a check for $5,000 so she could defend her ownership in court. Upon Villa's death in April 2005, Krueger became the personal representative of his estate. She brought suit against Ary, claiming Villa's conveyance of the house, land, and $5,000 were void based on Ary's breach of fiduciary duty and undue influence over Villa as his paid caretaker. Ary denied the claims, asserting the conveyances were gifts from Villa for her years of service. What do you think the court should do? What factors point to capacity? How does undue influence affect capacity?

Answer 1

The issue in the case is whether the deed conveyance was something that might have been done to provide for a kindly caretaker or whether the caretaker had taken advantage of the Villas. Both sides will make their case and the jury will have to decide from the evidence presented whom they choose to believe.
The gift is generous, but, on the other hand, she provided care when relatives did not. He had provided for his relatives and not disinherited them completely. There is no indication that she suggested the conveyance - it was done without her knowledge.

The court found that there was not undue influence. And the jury had concluded there was not unfairness in the property grand or undue influence.