Less than two years before he died, Mr. Murdaugh executed a Will that was prepared for him by an attorney. At the time, Mr. Murdaugh was living in the house of his dentist, Dr. Rudy W. Young, who was also providing him with a car to drive.
The Will named Dr. Young as the executor and sole beneficiary of Mr. Murdaugh’s estate.
Mr. Murdaugh used hydrocodone both legally, he had a prescription, and illegally. He obtained and used hydrocodone for which he did not have a prescription. Mr. Murdaugh used hydrocodones to excess, and Mr. Young knew that Mr. Murdaugh had a use problem with hydrocodones.
Dr. Young also had substance abuse problems of his own, and at times, he and Mr. Murdaugh would share drugs such as morphine, hydrocodone and dilaudid. Dr. Young prescribed hydrocodone tablets to Mr. Murdaugh. In fact, for several years between 1996 and 2002, Dr. Young prescribed hydrocodone tablets to Mr. Murdaugh when there was no legitimate medical purpose to prescribe the drug.
After Mr. Murdaugh died, Dr. Young presented his Will to the probate court in Madison County, Tennessee. Mr. Murdaugh’s sister Barbara Murdaugh Warner contested the validity of the Will on the grounds that “a special and confidential relationship” existed between her brother and Dr. Young, so much so that the Will should be void as being the product of undue influence.
If the Will were to be void, Mr. Murdaugh would die intestate, and his estate would pass to Ms. Warner – but in fact, the relationship between the two siblings was hostile, and this hostility stemmed from disputes over their father’s estate and other family issues.
There was no evidence that Mr. Steadman had named Dr. Young as his attorney-in-fact under a durable power of attorney, but Dr. Young agreed that a “confidential relationship” existed between him and Mr. Murdaugh.
Under the law, therefore, in a will contest, the burden was on Dr. Young to bring forth “clear and convincing evidence” to rebut the presumption that the Will naming him sole beneficiary of the estate was the product of his undue influence.
That he could not do, the trial judge ruled; and the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed on Dr. Young’s appeal.
Testators commonly make out their estate plans to confer benefits on those with whom they have confidential relationships. Does that mean that every such estate plan is automatically suspect?
Although a “confidential relationship” existed between the two men, that relationship in itself was not sufficient to make a prima facie claim of undue influence. Ms. Warner, said the appeals court, was also required to show the existence of other suspicious circumstances that show the Will was not entirely her brother’s free and independent act. Such circumstances often include:
(1) the existence of a confidential relationship between the testator and beneficiary;
(2) the testator's physical or mental deterioration;
(3) the beneficiary's active involvement in procuring the will;
(4) secrecy concerning the will's existence;
(5) the testator's advanced age;
(6) the lack of independent advice in preparing the will;
(7) the testator's illiteracy or blindness;
(8) the unjust or unnatural nature of the will's terms;
(9) the testator being in an emotionally distraught state;
(10) discrepancies between the will and the testator's expressed intentions; and
(11) fraud or duress directed toward the testator.
The circumstances of Mr. Murdaugh’s prescription drug addiction and that Dr. Young was the executor and sole beneficiary of Mr. Murdaugh’s estate, combined with the existence of the confidential relationship, gave rise to the presumption of undue influence, which Dr. Young failed to rebut to the satisfaction of the trial judge and the three-judge appellate court panel.
In Re: The Estate of Franklin Steadman Murdaugh, Barbara Murdaugh Warner v. Rudy W. Young, December 8, 2011.