Kimberlyn Ray v. Edna A. Williams
This text of Kimberlyn Ray v. Edna A. Williams (Kimberlyn Ray v. Edna A. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KIMBERLYN RAY and DONNA ) WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2017-0718-MTZ ) EDNA A. WILLIAMS, ) ) Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Date Submitted: December 12, 2019 Date Decided: March 31, 2020
Neil R. Lapinski and Phillip A. Giordano, GORDON, FOURNARIS & MAMMARELLA, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants Kimberlyn Ray and Donna Williams.
Jason C. Powell, THE POWELL FIRM, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Edna A. Williams.
ZURN, Vice Chancellor. In this family dispute, I have the privilege of discerning the final wishes and
intentions of Ronald R. Williams, who passed away on October 8, 2017. 1 In July
2017, Ronald knew he was dying and decided to spend his last weeks free from
mistreatment by his caretaker and third wife, Edna A. Williams, who is the
defendant and counterclaim plaintiff in this matter. With his children’s assistance,
Ronald left Edna and entered the care of his daughters by his second marriage:
plaintiffs and counterclaim defendants, Kimberlyn Ray and Donna Williams. 2
While under his daughters’ care, Ronald took measures to excise Edna from his
finances and final days. He also changed his burial plans, deciding that he would
like to be buried in the Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery, rather than in his
marital plot at Gracelawn Cemetery with Edna.
Edna claims Ronald’s decisions were the product of his daughters’ undue
influence. She seeks to unwind his decisions to make his daughters his
beneficiaries and to be buried in the Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery. This
post-trial decision finds that Ronald made those decisions independently, and
leaves Ronald’s finances and body as he wanted them.
1 In this family dispute, I use the parties’ first names in pursuit of clarity. I intend no familiarity or disrespect. Citations in the form of “[Name] Tr. ––” refer to witness testimony from the trial transcripts. Citations in the form of “[Name] Dep. ––” refer to deposition transcripts in the record. Citations in the form of “PTO ¶ ––” refer to stipulated facts in the pre-trial order. See Docket Item (“D.I.”) 103. Citations in the form of “JX –– at ––” refer to a trial exhibit. 2 See PTO ¶ 5.
1 I. BACKGROUND
After Ronald passed away on October 8, 2017,3 Kimberlyn and Donna
sought to effectuate their father’s wishes. Edna’s disagreement led Kimberlyn and
Donna to turn to this Court for assistance. On October 10, Kimberlyn and Donna
filed a Petition for Declaration of Deposit of Remains of Ronald R. Williams, 4 as
well as a motion for a temporary restraining order prohibiting Edna from
interfering with their disposal of Ronald’s remains.5 They submitted a number of
documents to the Court in an attempt to support Ronald’s decision to be buried in
the Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery (the “Veterans Cemetery”) and to
exclude Edna from his funeral arrangements. After argument on October 11,
Chancellor Bouchard granted Plaintiffs’ temporary restraining order, and gave
Kimberlyn and Donna authority to dispose of Ronald’s remains (the “October 2017
TRO”) pending a final merits determination.6
On November 13, Edna filed an Answer and Counterclaims.7 Edna brings
nine counts against Kimberlyn and Donna. Count I asserts a claim for undue
influence or lack of testamentary capacity; Count II seeks invalidation of
3 PTO ¶ 1. 4 D.I. 1 [hereinafter “Pet.”]. 5 D.I. 6. 6 D.I. 21, 100. 7 D.I. 23.
2 beneficiary designations and joint account title designations and damages; Count
III seeks pre- and post-mortem books and records and demands an accounting;
Count IV asserts a claim for tortious interference with prospective inheritance;
Count V asserts a claim for tortious interference with economic interest; Count VI
asserts a claim for unjust enrichment; Count VII seeks imposition of a resulting
trust; Count VIII seeks a constructive trust; and Count IX seeks a declaration of
Ronald’s burial and last rights.8
Edna seeks an order declaring that she is authorized to make Ronald’s last
funeral and burial arrangements, including but not limited to the disinterment of his
remains and reburial in their marital plot at Gracelawn Cemetery (“Gracelawn”);
declaring that all documents and beneficiary designations procured and unduly
influenced by Donna and Kimberlyn be rescinded or otherwise determined invalid;
compelling an accounting by Kimberlyn and Donna of Ronald’s assets for the
period of July 30, 2017 through October 8, 2017; and assessing damages against
Kimberlyn and Donna, including attorneys’ fees and costs.9 Kimberlyn and Donna
seek an order denying Edna’s requested relief and determining that Ronald’s body
8 D.I. 23. 9 D.I. 119 at 60–61.
3 should remain in the Veterans Cemetery and that changes to his beneficiary
designations are valid, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.10
This case was reassigned to me on October 4, 201811 and proceeded through
discovery. I held a four-day trial from June 3, 2019 through June 6.12 At trial, nine
witnesses testified live: Edna Williams, Kimberlyn Ray, Neil Kaye, M.D., Donna
Williams, Patricia Williams, Lawrence Ray, Vincent Hazzard, Ronald R. Williams,
Jr. (“Ronnie”), and Tiffine Williams. In addition, the parties submitted seventy
exhibits. The parties completed post-trial briefing on October 31,13 and I held
post-trial argument on December 12.14 These are my findings of fact based on the
preponderance of the evidence presented at trial.
A. The Williams Family
Ronald was born on January 15, 1947.15 He was a hard-working and
generous man with a moral compass.16 He had a high school education and served
in the military.17 Ronald was married three times and fathered five children. He
10 D.I. 123 at 58–59. 11 D.I. 55. 12 D.I. 112, 113, 114, 115. 13 D.I. 119, 123, 125. 14 D.I. 131, 132. 15 JX 32 at StatePension000080. 16 Edna Tr. 10:17–18. 17 Edna Tr. 11:3.
4 first married Joyce Lewis and fathered one daughter with her, Cheryl Lewis, while
serving in the military in Germany.18 Joyce and Ronald divorced, and Ronald then
married Patricia.19 Together they had Donna, Kimberlyn, and Ronnie.20 Ronald
also had another son, Jonathan Williams.21 In 1995, Ronald left Patricia and
married Edna.22
1. Ronald’s Children And Grandchildren
Ronald’s daughter Kimberlyn has five children: only her daughter Ashly
was involved in these events.23 After divorcing her previous husband in 2006,
Kimberlyn married Lawrence Ray in October 2015.24 They lived in Philadelphia
until 2018, when they moved to Newark, Delaware. 25 26 Kimberlyn worked as a
traffic flagger until 2016, when she went back to school.27 She then worked as a
18 PTO ¶ 3; Edna Tr. 8:15–18. 19 Kimberlyn Tr. 252:24–253:3. 20 PTO ¶ 3; Edna Tr. 9; Kimberlyn Tr. 499; Donna Tr. 627. 21 The parties disagree as to who Jonathan’s mother is. Compare D.I. 119 at 3, with D.I. 123 at 8. 22 Edna Tr. 10:9–12; Patricia Tr. 733:9–22; Patricia Tr. 733:22–734:2. 23 Kimberlyn Tr. 249:16–20. 24 Kimberlyn Tr. 249:7–8, 249:13–15. 25 Kimberlyn Tr. 263:22–24. 26 Kimberlyn Tr. 247:23–24. 27 Kimberlyn Tr. 250:8–18.
5 phlebotomist from October 2014 until July 2017. At that time, Kimberlyn stopped
working to help care for Ronald.28
Donna also lives in Newark.29 Donna has one minor daughter, N.W.30
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KIMBERLYN RAY and DONNA ) WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2017-0718-MTZ ) EDNA A. WILLIAMS, ) ) Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Date Submitted: December 12, 2019 Date Decided: March 31, 2020
Neil R. Lapinski and Phillip A. Giordano, GORDON, FOURNARIS & MAMMARELLA, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants Kimberlyn Ray and Donna Williams.
Jason C. Powell, THE POWELL FIRM, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Edna A. Williams.
ZURN, Vice Chancellor. In this family dispute, I have the privilege of discerning the final wishes and
intentions of Ronald R. Williams, who passed away on October 8, 2017. 1 In July
2017, Ronald knew he was dying and decided to spend his last weeks free from
mistreatment by his caretaker and third wife, Edna A. Williams, who is the
defendant and counterclaim plaintiff in this matter. With his children’s assistance,
Ronald left Edna and entered the care of his daughters by his second marriage:
plaintiffs and counterclaim defendants, Kimberlyn Ray and Donna Williams. 2
While under his daughters’ care, Ronald took measures to excise Edna from his
finances and final days. He also changed his burial plans, deciding that he would
like to be buried in the Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery, rather than in his
marital plot at Gracelawn Cemetery with Edna.
Edna claims Ronald’s decisions were the product of his daughters’ undue
influence. She seeks to unwind his decisions to make his daughters his
beneficiaries and to be buried in the Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery. This
post-trial decision finds that Ronald made those decisions independently, and
leaves Ronald’s finances and body as he wanted them.
1 In this family dispute, I use the parties’ first names in pursuit of clarity. I intend no familiarity or disrespect. Citations in the form of “[Name] Tr. ––” refer to witness testimony from the trial transcripts. Citations in the form of “[Name] Dep. ––” refer to deposition transcripts in the record. Citations in the form of “PTO ¶ ––” refer to stipulated facts in the pre-trial order. See Docket Item (“D.I.”) 103. Citations in the form of “JX –– at ––” refer to a trial exhibit. 2 See PTO ¶ 5.
1 I. BACKGROUND
After Ronald passed away on October 8, 2017,3 Kimberlyn and Donna
sought to effectuate their father’s wishes. Edna’s disagreement led Kimberlyn and
Donna to turn to this Court for assistance. On October 10, Kimberlyn and Donna
filed a Petition for Declaration of Deposit of Remains of Ronald R. Williams, 4 as
well as a motion for a temporary restraining order prohibiting Edna from
interfering with their disposal of Ronald’s remains.5 They submitted a number of
documents to the Court in an attempt to support Ronald’s decision to be buried in
the Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery (the “Veterans Cemetery”) and to
exclude Edna from his funeral arrangements. After argument on October 11,
Chancellor Bouchard granted Plaintiffs’ temporary restraining order, and gave
Kimberlyn and Donna authority to dispose of Ronald’s remains (the “October 2017
TRO”) pending a final merits determination.6
On November 13, Edna filed an Answer and Counterclaims.7 Edna brings
nine counts against Kimberlyn and Donna. Count I asserts a claim for undue
influence or lack of testamentary capacity; Count II seeks invalidation of
3 PTO ¶ 1. 4 D.I. 1 [hereinafter “Pet.”]. 5 D.I. 6. 6 D.I. 21, 100. 7 D.I. 23.
2 beneficiary designations and joint account title designations and damages; Count
III seeks pre- and post-mortem books and records and demands an accounting;
Count IV asserts a claim for tortious interference with prospective inheritance;
Count V asserts a claim for tortious interference with economic interest; Count VI
asserts a claim for unjust enrichment; Count VII seeks imposition of a resulting
trust; Count VIII seeks a constructive trust; and Count IX seeks a declaration of
Ronald’s burial and last rights.8
Edna seeks an order declaring that she is authorized to make Ronald’s last
funeral and burial arrangements, including but not limited to the disinterment of his
remains and reburial in their marital plot at Gracelawn Cemetery (“Gracelawn”);
declaring that all documents and beneficiary designations procured and unduly
influenced by Donna and Kimberlyn be rescinded or otherwise determined invalid;
compelling an accounting by Kimberlyn and Donna of Ronald’s assets for the
period of July 30, 2017 through October 8, 2017; and assessing damages against
Kimberlyn and Donna, including attorneys’ fees and costs.9 Kimberlyn and Donna
seek an order denying Edna’s requested relief and determining that Ronald’s body
8 D.I. 23. 9 D.I. 119 at 60–61.
3 should remain in the Veterans Cemetery and that changes to his beneficiary
designations are valid, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.10
This case was reassigned to me on October 4, 201811 and proceeded through
discovery. I held a four-day trial from June 3, 2019 through June 6.12 At trial, nine
witnesses testified live: Edna Williams, Kimberlyn Ray, Neil Kaye, M.D., Donna
Williams, Patricia Williams, Lawrence Ray, Vincent Hazzard, Ronald R. Williams,
Jr. (“Ronnie”), and Tiffine Williams. In addition, the parties submitted seventy
exhibits. The parties completed post-trial briefing on October 31,13 and I held
post-trial argument on December 12.14 These are my findings of fact based on the
preponderance of the evidence presented at trial.
A. The Williams Family
Ronald was born on January 15, 1947.15 He was a hard-working and
generous man with a moral compass.16 He had a high school education and served
in the military.17 Ronald was married three times and fathered five children. He
10 D.I. 123 at 58–59. 11 D.I. 55. 12 D.I. 112, 113, 114, 115. 13 D.I. 119, 123, 125. 14 D.I. 131, 132. 15 JX 32 at StatePension000080. 16 Edna Tr. 10:17–18. 17 Edna Tr. 11:3.
4 first married Joyce Lewis and fathered one daughter with her, Cheryl Lewis, while
serving in the military in Germany.18 Joyce and Ronald divorced, and Ronald then
married Patricia.19 Together they had Donna, Kimberlyn, and Ronnie.20 Ronald
also had another son, Jonathan Williams.21 In 1995, Ronald left Patricia and
married Edna.22
1. Ronald’s Children And Grandchildren
Ronald’s daughter Kimberlyn has five children: only her daughter Ashly
was involved in these events.23 After divorcing her previous husband in 2006,
Kimberlyn married Lawrence Ray in October 2015.24 They lived in Philadelphia
until 2018, when they moved to Newark, Delaware. 25 26 Kimberlyn worked as a
traffic flagger until 2016, when she went back to school.27 She then worked as a
18 PTO ¶ 3; Edna Tr. 8:15–18. 19 Kimberlyn Tr. 252:24–253:3. 20 PTO ¶ 3; Edna Tr. 9; Kimberlyn Tr. 499; Donna Tr. 627. 21 The parties disagree as to who Jonathan’s mother is. Compare D.I. 119 at 3, with D.I. 123 at 8. 22 Edna Tr. 10:9–12; Patricia Tr. 733:9–22; Patricia Tr. 733:22–734:2. 23 Kimberlyn Tr. 249:16–20. 24 Kimberlyn Tr. 249:7–8, 249:13–15. 25 Kimberlyn Tr. 263:22–24. 26 Kimberlyn Tr. 247:23–24. 27 Kimberlyn Tr. 250:8–18.
5 phlebotomist from October 2014 until July 2017. At that time, Kimberlyn stopped
working to help care for Ronald.28
Donna also lives in Newark.29 Donna has one minor daughter, N.W.30
N.W.’s father is Vincent Hazzard, who is a military veteran.31 Vincent and Ronald
were friendly and talked about their military service and life in general.32 Donna
has allowed several family members to live with her over the years: her “house
was like a revolving door some days.”33 Donna has always been closest with her
sister Kimberlyn,34 whose daughter Ashly frequently visited and stayed with
Donna while Ronald was living in Donna’s home.35 Ashly’s friend and father of
her child, Chris Ikomi, also visited Donna’s house during that period.36 After
Ronald’s death, Patricia moved in with Donna.37
28 Kimberlyn Tr. 250:19–251:1. 29 Kimberlyn Tr. 401:24–402:10. 30 Vincent Tr. 925:18–21. 31 Vincent Tr. 925:18–21, 944:2–10, 946:9–947:2. 32 Vincent Tr. 944:2–10, 946:9–947:2. 33 Donna Tr. 714:19-21. 34 Donna Tr. 627:23–24. 35 See Donna Tr. 714:14–21. 36 Kimberlyn Tr. 448:6–449:12; Donna Tr. 714:14–21. 37 Donna Tr. 627:12–14; Patricia 755:1–757:19; see also Donna Tr. 630:5–14.
6 Ronnie is married to Tiffine Williams.38 They live in New Castle, Delaware
with their two children.39 Ronnie and Tiffine regularly visited Ronald and Edna at
their home from 2015 to 2017.40 Ronnie had a relationship with his sisters Donna
and Kimberlyn until Ronald left Edna in July 2017.41 At that time, Ronnie and
Tiffine stopped speaking to his sisters and father.42 Ronnie refused to reach out to
Ronald even after Patricia tried to convince him to do so in Ronald’s final days.43
Ronnie also developed a strained relationship with his mother Patricia, who was
living with him until he asked her to move out.44 In the tumultuous days around
Ronald’s death, Ronnie told Patricia that she could no longer live with him, and
she feared that Ronnie might hit her.45 Ronnie felt that Edna treated Ronald well
and has supported Edna’s position throughout this litigation.46 He has memory
problems due to a car accident.47
38 Tiffine Tr. 1005:8–11. 39 Tiffine Tr. 1005:5–15. 40 Edna Tr. 59:1–3, 59:23–60:4. 41 See Kimberlyn Tr. 456:2–8; Donna Tr. 601:9–602:3, 628:4–629:14, 816:17–19; Patricia Tr. 742:5–13. 42 See Kimberlyn Tr. 456:2–8; Donna Tr. 601:9–602:3, 628:4–629:14, 816:17–19; Patricia Tr. 742:5–13. 43 Donna Tr. 629:9–14, 630:4–14; Patricia Tr. 742:3–20. 44 Donna Tr. 627:12–14; Patricia Tr. 755:1–757:19. 45 Donna Tr. 627:12–14; Patricia Tr. 755:1–757:19; see also Donna Tr. 630:5–14. 46 See, e.g., Ronnie Tr. 1003:11–16. 47 Ronnie Tr. 965:8–11.
7 2. Ronald And Edna
In the 1990s, Ronald worked as a certified nursing assistant at Delaware
Psychiatric Center.48 In 1992, he met Edna, who was working at Delaware
Psychiatric Center as a psychiatric nursing supervisor after earning her associate’s
degree in nursing.49 Ronald and Edna had an affair for some time before Ronald
left Patricia and married Edna in September 1995.50 Edna and Ronald had no
children together, but Ronald helped raise Edna’s daughter from a previous
marriage.51
Patricia and Ronald continued to have a romantic relationship for
approximately six years after he married Edna, until around 2002.52 Thereafter,
they maintained a friendly relationship and spoke at holidays and family
gatherings.53 Patricia did not like Edna but “always tolerated her because she was
in the family and [her] children . . . were involved.”54
48 Edna Tr. 9:15–20, 10:23–24. 49 Edna Tr. 7:6–8:4. 50 Edna Tr. 9:19–10:12; Patricia Tr. 733:22–734:2. 51 Edna Tr. 8:12–24. 52 See Patricia Tr. 734:3–735:9. 53 Patricia Tr. 734:17–19, 735:7–12. 54 Patricia Tr. 735:15–18.
8 Ronald loved Edna.55 They enjoyed watching television, going to flea
markets, cooking, traveling, and frequenting Atlantic City.56 Edna described
Ronald as “[t]he most wonderful man [she] ever met.”57 Donna confirmed that
there was “no doubt” Ronald loved Edna until the day that he died.58
Edna and Ronald jointly held several properties and accounts. They jointly
owned their marital home in Smyrna, Delaware, and a rental property located on
4th Street in Wilmington.59 Edna and Ronald held a joint account at PNC, and joint
credit cards at Citibank, Visa, and Discover.60
In 2006, Ronald took out a $100,000 life insurance plan with MetLife (the
“MetLife Policy”).61 He initially named Edna as the primary beneficiary and his
mother as the secondary or contingent beneficiary. 62 Ronald also named Edna as
the beneficiary of a $7,000 State of Delaware death burial benefit policy (the
“Death Benefit”).63 Edna was aware that she was the primary beneficiary on the
55 See, e.g., Donna Tr. 819:11–13, 911:19–22. 56 Edna Tr. 11. 57 Edna Tr. 10. 58 Donna Tr. 911:19–912:1. 59 Edna Tr. 12, 50. 60 Edna Tr. 85:7–10, 91–92; see also JX 60. 61 Edna Tr. 93–94; JX 64. 62 Edna Tr. 93:21–24. 63 Edna Tr. 86–87.
9 MetLife Policy and that Ronald held the Death Benefit.64 Eventually, Ronald
would name Kimberlyn and Donna as the beneficiaries of both the MetLife Policy
and Death Benefit.65 Ronald never discussed with Edna naming Kimberlyn or
Donna as the beneficiaries of either asset.66
In 1997, Ronald and Edna purchased joint burial plots at Gracelawn
Cemetery in New Castle, Delaware.67 They paid for the plots over several years.68
Ronald and Edna signed the plot purchase agreement and requested that they read
“Together Forever.”69 Ronald’s family knew he had purchased the Gracelawn
plots and assumed that, at the time he purchased them, he was to be buried with
Edna.70 Ronald expressed that he wanted a non-religious ceremony,71 and he
wanted to be buried in a black pinstripe suit, wearing a hat.72 When Ronald and
Edna’s relationship was healthy, Ronald told Edna that he did not want to be
64 Edna Tr. 86:19–21, 94:1–5. 65 Edna Tr. 87:2–5; see also JX 10; JX 12. 66 Edna Tr. 87:24–88:2, 94:10–16. After Ronald had a falling out with Donna and Kimberlyn in 2012, he told Donna and others that he did not plan on leaving anything to his daughters. Id. 94:16–19. 67 JX 45; Edna Tr. 96:9–16. 68 Edna Tr. 96:17–18, 102, 432. 69 JX 45. 70 Kimberlyn Tr. 432:20–433:2, 433:6–13, 434:9–14. 71 Edna Tr. 96:20–21, 97:1–5. 72 Edna Tr. 97:6–10.
10 buried at the Veterans Cemetery and that he intended to be buried at Gracelawn.73
But he made it clear that “[h]e wanted to be recognized for his service” with an
honor guard, which Edna assumed was “a three-gun salute in honor of a veteran at
their burial ceremony.”74
Ronald and Edna remained married until Ronald died. Their relationship,
like many in the Williams family, ebbed and flowed. This case centers on the state
of their marriage in the months before Ronald passed away in 2017, when Ronald
left Edna to live with and be cared for by his daughters Kimberlyn and Donna.
The variable nature of relationships within the Williams family, and between
Ronald and Edna, provides important context for that time.
3. The Williams Family Relationships
Relationships between members of the Williams family were periodically
strained, and other family members took sides when a dispute erupted.75 Ronald’s
relationship with Edna was at the heart of many family schisms.76 Edna and her
73 Edna Tr. 96:18–20, 123-26. 74 Edna Tr. 97:10–12, 124:10–11. Edna later contended that Donna and Kimberlyn failed to provide an honor guard at Ronald’s funeral. See id. 97:10–13. Edna is incorrect. Ronald had a “minimum requirement” honor guard because the riflemen were unavailable for his ceremony. See Donna Tr. 651:7–652:9. 75 See, e.g., Kimberlyn Tr. 254:21–255:21; Donna Tr. 627:23–628:15. 76 See, e.g., JX 22; JX 6 at Plaintiffs 000289–000300.
11 family have always been at odds with Ronald’s daughters and their families.77
Kimberlyn and Donna blamed Edna for their parents’ failed marriage, and came to
dislike Edna for the way she treated their father.78
From 1995 through 2006, Kimberlyn did not see Ronald or have a
meaningful relationship with him because of his marriage with Edna.79 While not
fond of Edna, Kimberlyn still respected her because she was married to Ronald.80
Donna’s relationship with her father after his marriage to Edna was similarly
chilly, but she was in “sporadic” contact with her father.81 Starting in 1997 and
continuing into her young adulthood, Donna periodically lived with her father and
Edna, and she remained in contact with him, including through her time at basic
training.82 When Donna broke her pelvic bone during basic training around 2001
or 2002, Ronald drove twelve hours to South Carolina to pick her up for leave.83
While at first Donna did not like Edna or understand why her father left her
mother for Edna, she “eventually came to understand. This type of stuff happens.
77 See, e.g., JX 21; JX 22. 78 See, e.g., Donna Tr. 631:2–9. 79 Edna Tr. 41–44. 80 See Kimberlyn Tr. 413:2–4, 429:15–17. 81 Donna Tr. 632:19–633:3. 82 Donna Tr. 626:22–627:1, 633:4–12, 633:24–634:1. 83 Donna Tr. 633:15–21.
12 My mother wasn’t perfect.”84 Donna and Edna bonded.85 Donna ultimately came
to support Ronald’s decision to marry Edna,86 and Edna became an influential part
of Donna’s life.87 Edna influenced Donna to pursue her advanced nursing
degrees.88 And Donna’s relationship with Ronald and Edna progressed after
Donna reached out to them following Edna’s daughter’s death in 2006.89
Ronnie also had a strained relationship with his father for some time prior to
2012.90 Ronald became unhappy with his son after Ronnie was incarcerated after
making a statement in court that displeased Ronald.91 Edna and Ronald only saw
Ronnie “occasionally.”92 But over time, Ronnie and his father “cultivated a very
good relationship.”93
84 Donna Tr. 631:12–14; see also id. 632:8–13. 85 Donna Tr. 631:15–17, 626:20, 627:1–2. 86 Donna Tr. 631:18–20. 87 Donna Tr. 626:16–18, 627:2–5. 88 Donna Tr. 626:16–18, 627:2–5. 89 Edna Tr. 44–45. 90 Edna. Tr. 116:9–13. 91 Edna Tr. 116:14–17. 92 Edna Tr. 116:7. 93 Edna Tr. 116:11–13.
13 a. Ronald And Edna’s 2012 Separation
Even though they experienced happy times, Ronald and Edna’s relationship
was “rocky.”94 Ronald left Edna for the first time in 2012.95 At that time, Ronald
and Edna were arguing frequently.96 He decided to leave after a particular
argument with Edna after a family barbecue.97 Kimberlyn had invited Patricia,
which angered Edna.98 Edna angrily and “colorful[ly]” asked Ronald why Patricia
was there.99 Ronald became “bewildered,” avoided her question, and left the
room.100 Donna and Kimberlyn did not like the way Edna had spoken to Ronald;
both sisters confronted Edna, and Donna physically threatened her.101 The
argument led to “very ill feelings” between Donna and Edna.102 That night, Donna
94 Patricia Tr. 735:21–23; see also Edna Tr. 47:8–11 (discussing how Ronald left Edna considering their problems in 2012). 95 Donna Tr. 600–01. 96 Kimberlyn Tr. 503:10–13; Donna Tr. 600:3–9. 97 See Edna Tr. 46:13–47: 11. 98 Edna Tr. 46:13–15, 46:18; Kimberlyn Tr. 503:16–19, 504:12–24. Kimberlyn and Edna dispute whether Edna had prior knowledge of Patricia’s attendance. Compare Edna Tr. 46:15–16, with Kimberlyn Tr. 504:15–20. That is irrelevant for purposes of this opinion. 99 Edna Tr. 46:13–19. 100 Edna Tr. 46:13–23. 101 See Edna Tr. 46:22–47:3; Donna Tr. 505:3–5, 818:15–18. 102 Edna Tr. 47:3–7, 110:22–11:1.
14 and Kimberlyn stayed at Edna and Ronald’s home.103 Edna continued to disrespect
Ronald, and so her argument with Donna and Kimberlyn continued.104
Ronald decided to leave Edna and moved in with Donna and Kimberlyn at
his rental property in Wilmington.105 Edna arrived home to find that Ronald had
left.106 Ronald did not explain his reasons for leaving to Edna.107 He told his
daughters he left because “[h]e was tired of [Edna], tired of the way she would
treat him. He was just tired of arguing . . . .”108 Edna concedes that “he left on his
own volition.”109
Ronald was concerned that Edna would appropriate all of their jointly held
funds: “[h]e wanted to make sure [] he had his part of the money.” 110 Ronald
shared this concern with his daughters and withdrew half of the funds in the joint
account, leaving the remaining half for Edna.111 Edna was concerned,112 but
103 Kimberlyn Tr. 505:6–10. 104 Edna Tr. 47:8–10; Kimberlyn Tr. 505:11–506:4. 105 Edna Tr. 47:8–11, 112:7–10; Kimberlyn Tr. 503–04, 506:10–12; Donna Tr. 600–01, 634:18–635:10; Ronnie Tr. 965–66. 106 Edna Tr. 47:8–11, 111:1–4. 107 Edna Tr. 110:8–12, 110:21–22, 111:3–4. 108 Kimberlyn Tr. 506:19–507:3; see also Donna Tr. 600:3–9. 109 Edna Tr. 112:13. 110 Donna Tr. 600–01; see also Edna Tr. 113:18–114:3. 111 Donna Tr. 600–01, 636:4–5; see also Edna Tr. 114:2–3. 112 Edna Tr. 114:10–12.
15 Ronald “wanted to make sure he had access to money she couldn’t get to.” 113
Upon Ronald’s request, Donna opened a joint account with him at the Dover
Federal Credit Union (the “DFCU Account”).114 Both Donna and Ronald were
holders on the DFCU Account, “but the account was for him.” 115 Donna had
access to the account, but she did not use it.116
Ronald also made Kimberlyn an authorized user on his credit cards and
placed her on his insurance.117 On occasion, Kimberlyn and Donna asked their
father for money to pay for miscellaneous things, which Ronald permitted.118
Ronald made no other changes to his finances while living with his daughters in
113 Donna Tr. 636:4–5. 114 Donna Tr. 635:11–636:12. 115 Donna Tr. 636:8–10. 116 Donna Tr. 636:11–12. 117 Edna Tr. 1018:11–13. 118 See Edna Tr. 1018:9–15. Edna testified that “while he was staying there, they aggressively encouraged him to file for divorce, they aggressively encouraged him to change the beneficiary on his life insurance policies, made it well-known that they did not like me, that they did not want the marriage to continue.” Id. 51:9–15. She later testified that Ronald “informed me that his daughter Kimberlyn had injected herself deeply into our finances. He had made her an authorized user on credit cards. She had asked to be put on our insurance, which she was. He said she was asking for money for various things such as car repairs and whatnot.” Id. 1018:9–15. Kimberlyn’s testimony conflicts with Edna’s. See Kimberlyn Tr. 507:7–18. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Donna and Kimberlyn asked their father to pay for miscellaneous things and that he voluntarily allowed them access to his finances, not that they interjected themselves into Ronald’s finances or stole his money.
16 2012.119 His daughters never asked him to change his insurance beneficiary forms,
complete a power of attorney, or execute a new will.120
While Ronald was living with his daughters, they encouraged Ronald to
divorce Edna.121 But Ronald had already been divorced twice and had “lost
everything” each time.122 Donna and Kimberlyn were also concerned about their
father’s age and health and suggested that he seek care.123
After roughly two months, Ronald decided to return home to Edna.124
Ronald did not want to experience the financial loss that came with divorce
again.125 He also did not like losing his independence.126 As he had done with
Edna, Ronald “just left without saying anything.”127 His daughters returned home
to discover that he was gone, without any explanation.128 They eventually learned
119 See Kimberlyn Tr. 507:7–18. 120 Kimberlyn Tr. 507:7–18. 121 Edna Tr. 51:9–11. 122 Donna Tr. 638:7–639:11. 123 Ronnie Tr. 966:22–23, 967:18–968:4. In 2012, Donna and Kimberlyn had reason to be concerned about Ronald’s health. He was diagnosed with cancer in 2002 and began dialysis shortly after returning to Edna in 2013. See Edna Tr. 12–13. 124 Edna Tr. 47:23–24, 50:18–22. 125 Donna Tr. 638:7–639:11. 126 Cf. Edna Tr. 99:10 (stating that “my husband tended to buck authority”). 127 Kimberlyn Tr. 508:2–9; accord Donna Tr. 638:7–11. 128 Donna Tr. 638.
17 he had returned to Edna.129 Upon his return, Ronald colorfully communicated his
displeasure with his daughters, as was typical for him.130
In the midst of these 2012 transitions, Edna filed a petition for a protection
from abuse order against Donna and Kimberlyn (the “2012 PFA”).131 Edna did so
because Donna and Kimberlyn had threatened her.132 The 2012 PFA was granted
against both Donna and Kimberlyn.133 Edna claims that Kimberlyn violated the
2012 PFA on one occasion when she called Ronald and Edna’s home.134
After Ronald reunited with Edna, his relationship with his daughters chilled
again.135 The 2012 PFA strained their relationship as well.136 While Donna did not
see Ronald, she spoke to him occasionally: their relationship was “very
limited.”137 Kimberlyn did not see or speak to her father from 2012 until roughly
129 Donna Tr. 638. 130 See Ronnie Tr. 966:1–6, 966:21–23, 967:18–968:4; Edna Tr. 1018:15–16. Ronnie explained that it was typical for Ronald to speak in vulgar, mean tones, but that those sentiments were unfounded at their core. Ronnie Tr. 966:13–23. And Ronald lashed out when he felt his family was infringing on his independence. See id. 970:19–24. 131 Edna Tr. 48:24–49:6. 132 Edna Tr. 49:1–3. 133 Edna Tr. 49:3–6. 134 Edna Tr. 49:7–50:3. 135 See Kimberlyn Tr. 508:16–509:4. 136 See Donna Tr. 640 (“There was a PFA against me. We hadn’t quite reconciled, but we weren’t estranged. So I talked to him on the phone, but I would never go to the house because I didn’t want to have interactions with her, with Edna.”). 137 Donna Tr. 640, 817–19.
18 2015.138 Edna, not Ronald, remained the primary reason for Donna and
Kimberlyn’s strained relationship with Ronald between 2012 and 2015.139 After
2012, Ronald maintained a good relationship with Ronnie,140 but was angry with
his daughters.141 Donna and Kimberlyn would not strengthen their relationship
with Ronald until 2015, after his health began to fail.142
b. The 2015 Reconciliation
When Ronnie learned that Ronald only had roughly five to six years to live,
he suggested to Ronald and Edna that Ronald reconcile with Donna and
Kimberlyn.143 Ronald wanted his daughters back in his life, and after some
convincing, Edna was also open to a reconciliation.144 So were Donna and
Kimberlyn.145 Ronnie arranged a meeting sometime before August 2, 2015.146
The family discussed the incident and agreed to resolve their differences, and
Donna and Kimberlyn visited Ronald and Edna more often thereafter. 147 And
138 Kimberlyn Tr. 508:16–509:4. 139 Kimberlyn Tr. 258:9–260:9, 259:5–9; Donna Tr. 640:18–22. 140 See, e.g., Ronnie Tr. 971:1–3. 141 See Ronnie Tr. 1002:24–1003:7. 142 See Edna Tr. 55:22–56:12. 143 Ronnie Tr. 1003:8–10, Edna Tr. 55:22–56:12. 144 See Edna Tr. 56:6–12. 145 See Donna Tr. 642:9, 643:6–8. 146 See Donna Tr. 642:9–12. 147 Edna Tr. 57:4–12; Donna Tr. 642.
19 eventually Ronald told his daughters the true reason he returned to Edna in 2012:
“he loved his wife and he didn’t want to die alone,”148 and he “decided that he
wouldn’t want to lose [everything]” in a divorce.149
Donna began visiting her father as regularly as her job allowed.150
Kimberlyn visited her father sporadically until May 2017; Kimberlyn’s visits
increased to at least once a week after that date.151 From 2015 to May 2017,
Ronnie visited Ronald almost every week to help Ronald and Edna with various
choses and tasks around the house.152 While Kimberlyn, Donna, and Edna tried to
put the past behind them, their relationship remained strained.153
B. Ronald And The Military
In addition to Ronald’s complex relationships with his wife and family, this
case prominently features Ronald’s complex relationship with the military and how
that relationship manifested in his burial decisions over the years. Ronald served
in the United States Army for six years, remaining at the rank of private.154 That
“was a conscious decision on his part” because “[h]e did not want the
148 Donna Tr. 819:11–19. 149 Donna Tr. 638:21–639:11. 150 Donna Tr. 642:23–643:2. 151 Edna Tr. 57:18–22, 58:2–7. 152 Edna Tr. 59:1–8. 153 See JX 6 at Plaintiffs 000289–000300; Edna Tr. 57:7–8. 154 Edna Tr. 97:19–20; Donna Tr. 647.
20 responsibility that went with higher rank.”155 He was stationed in Vietnam from
1965 to 1967, where he witnessed difficult events and suffered two severe
injuries.156
Ronald was shot in the elbow and caught a grenade between his legs.157
After sewing his own leg up, Ronald was hospitalized for eighteen months.158 The
Army wanted to amputate Ronald’s injured arm, but he refused, even after being
threatened with court martial.159 He left the military and received a Purple
Heart.160 Thereafter, Ronald received disability checks from the Veterans
Administration (“VA”).161
When he returned home from Vietnam, Ronald was negative about his
service.162 He was angry at the ineffective leadership that led to his injuries,163 and
155 Edna Tr. 97:21–23. 156 See Edna Tr. 97:23–98:3, 99:12–24; Donna Tr. 647:21–648:4. Ronald drove tanks. Soldiers slept under the tanks, and Ronald saw tank operators drive over them without checking if anyone was underneath, with fatal results. Donna Tr. 647:21–648:4. Ronald also suffered post-traumatic stress disorder from a combat situation in which he was forced to kill a booby-trapped child to save himself and his company. Edna Tr. 99:13– 18. “He was very angry about that.” Id. Ronald “joined the Army because it was his desire to help children and he never imagined that he would be put in the position to actually have to kill one.” Id. 99:22–24. 157 Edna Tr. 97:24–98:3; Donna Tr. 646–47. 158 Edna Tr. 98:4–5; Donna Tr. 647:1–8. 159 Edna Tr. 98:6–10, 98:18–20. 160 Donna Tr. 646–48. 161 Edna Tr. 98:18–22. 162 Edna Tr. 99:3–5; Kimberlyn Tr. 432:3–15; Donna Tr. 648.
21 he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.164 Ronald felt that the VA treated
him and his fellow soldiers terribly when they returned home, and he was angry
that there were no resources for veterans coming home from war.165
At the same time, Ronald was “was absolutely proud of his service to his
country” and displayed his pride in many ways.166 Ronald always wore a veteran’s
hat from at least the time he was married to Patricia until his death, and enjoyed
wearing a hat that read “I’m a Dysfunctional Vietnam Vet.”167 He shared his war
stories.168 But perhaps most telling was his pride for Donna’s military service.169
Donna became a licensed practical nurse after graduating from Delcastle’s
vocational program in 1997 and enlisted in the military in 2001.170 Donna has
been in the military since that time and has served numerous tours overseas.171
Donna currently serves as a registered nurse for the VA Hospital in Perry Point,
163 Edna Tr. 99:5–11. 164 Edna Tr. 99:12–24; see also JX 58 at E.Williams000056. 165 Edna Tr. 99:3–5; Kimberlyn Tr. 432:3–15; Donna Tr. 648. 166 See Edna Tr. 123:15–18; 125; Donna Tr. 648:95–12; Patricia Tr. 740:14–741:3. 167 Edna Tr. 124:18–22. 168 Donna Tr. 647:3–4. 169 See, e.g., Donna Tr. 649:2–8 (stating she and Ronald had an “unbreakable” bond from their military service). 170 Donna Tr. 624:9–14, 626:9–12. 171 Donna Tr. 623–27.
22 Maryland.172 She was recently promoted to the rank of master sergeant.173 She
received her associate’s degree in nursing in 2016 and is now pursing her
bachelor’s degree.174
Watching Donna’s military career flourish ignited Ronald’s deeply held
pride for his own service and transformed some of his negative thoughts about his
return home from war.175 When Donna was promoted to the rank of E7 after
returning home from a tour in Iraq, Ronald attended the ceremony and pinned the
new rank on her uniform: a special moment between two veterans.176 Ronald was
extremely proud of Donna’s promotion:
That is a big thing for us because that is the next step in leadership. My father never wanted to be where I am. He was so proud that I was able to do what I do, and carry it the way I do. He was proud of that because he didn’t want that responsibility. And I was able to take that responsibility and run with it.177
Ronald planned a celebratory trip to Hawaii with Donna and Edna.178 Donna and
Ronald spent time at Pearl Harbor to honor the deaths of their fellow soldiers.179
As Donna testified,
172 Donna Tr. 623:19–626:1. 173 Donna Tr. 623:24–624:2. 174 Donna Tr. 623:10–18, 626:13–18 175 See Donna Tr. 648–49. 176 Donna Tr. 649:2–650:4. 177 Donna Tr. 649–50; see also Edna Tr. 97:20–23. 178 Donna Tr. 650:5–651:4; JX 46 at Plaintiffs 000302–03.
23 [M]e and my father went. . . . It was a moment that we both shared. He was a veteran. I am a veteran. It was a once in a chance lifetime we are both able to go to Pearl Harbor. And we sat on the ship and we tried to both figure out. You know, replay Pearl Harbor as it happened in our heads. Just those different moments being able . . . strategically to sit down and think of stuff with my father in that moment was a proud moment for me and for him.180
Ronald was proud of Donna and his relationship with her; he shared an
“unbreakable” bond with her.181
Through observing Donna’s military career, Ronald’s “grudge against the
military in general”182 became a more delineated disdain toward the VA Hospital,
which he felt treated him poorly when he returned home from Vietnam. 183
Donna’s honorable reception when she returned home, and Donna’s own
knowledge of the military, helped Ronald better understand his own position:
179 Donna Tr. 650:5–651:4; JX 46 at Plaintiffs 000302–03. 180 Donna Tr. 650–51; JX 46 at Plaintiffs 000302–03. 181 Donna Tr. 649:4, 649:2–8. Donna stated that “[s]o many people on the outside looking in would never understand that.” Id. 649:11–12. 182 Edna Tr. 123:9–10. 183 Kimberlyn Tr. 432:3–19.
24 He wasn’t happy on how he was treated when he came home. Took me a long time to get him to understand the difference between the VA, veterans cemetery, benefits services. And I work for the VA hospital. So I had to get him to understand that. Things have changed, and that they are not the same people and policy . . . even when I came home from Iraq, he came to my ceremony. It was different. They acknowledged us. They treated us with respect and dignity that we deserved. He didn’t get that. That what he was angry about.184
With this understanding, Ronald did not harbor negative feelings toward the
veterans’ benefits he received or veterans’ cemeteries.185 In fact, he always
maintained that he would like his military service to be recognized in some way at
his burial.186 By the end of his life, Ronald was a proud veteran whose positive
feelings about his service were invigorated by Donna’s military achievements.
Ronald consistently wanted to honor his service at his burial.187
C. Ronald’s Failing Health
In addition to the injuries he sustained in Vietnam, Ronald suffered from
numerous health issues throughout his life.188 When Edna met him, he had
184 Donna Tr. 648:13–649:1. I find Donna’s testimony credible, especially as to Ronald’s feelings about the military later in life. I also find Kimberlyn’s testimony consistent with Donna’s and credible on this point. 185 See Kimberlyn Tr. 432. 186 Edna Tr. 97:10–12. 187 See Edna Tr. 97:10–12; Kimberlyn Tr. 432; Donna Tr. 648–49. 188 See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000052–57. Ronald’s medical records identify roughly 45 “problems” in his health history.
25 hypertension, and shortly after marrying Edna, he had cervical spine fusions.189 In
2002, he was diagnosed with renal cancer.190 And in 2013, Ronald was diagnosed
with an aortic aneurysm.191 He also had cardiomyopathy, peripheral vascular
disease, glaucoma, cataracts, and degenerative disk disease.192
In 2013, Ronald began dialysis for his renal cancer, beginning with home
dialysis and then transitioning to a dialysis center; by 2017, Ronald needed
inpatient dialysis three days a week.193 The treatments required a catheter be
placed in Ronald’s chest.194 Each treatment lasted hours, and each session fatigued
and “drain[ed]” him.195
In March 2017, Ronald was diagnosed with lung cancer; by April, it had
progressed to stage three.196 Ronald’s doctors explained that even with
chemotherapy and radiation, there was only a twenty to twenty-five percent chance
189 Edna Tr. 12–13. 190 Edna Tr. 12:23–13:4; JX 58 at 653, 656. 191 JX 58 at 649–650. 192 Edna Tr. Tr. 14:4-12. 193 Edna Tr. 12:23–13:4, 15:1, 16:7–11. 194 Edna Tr. 15–16. 195 Edna Tr. 15–16. 196 Edna Tr. 15:2–4, 24:15–18; JX 58 at E.Williams000579, E.Williams000591; Masters Dep. 33. On April 6, 2017, Dr. Greg Masters, Ronald’s oncologist, discovered that Ronald had two separate cancers: renal cell carcinoma and non-small cell lung cancer. Masters Dep. 25.
26 of a cure.197 But Ronald remained optimistic.198 Ronald pursued an “aggressive”
approach to his treatment, and began daily radiation therapy.199 Ronald continued
to receive dialysis.200
In addition to taking doctor-approved medications, Edna also gave Ronald a
number of supplements that she ordered online.201 Ronald did not enjoy taking
these supplements, found them difficult to digest, and complained about them to
his family.202 His doctors did not approve these supplements: according to
Ronald’s medical records, he was taking a number of medications and supplements
that were not prescribed by his doctors and needed to be approved by his
nephrologist.203 And Ronald informed his doctors that Edna had “thoughts about
certain medications,” such as opiates, and made Ronald stop taking them, despite
being prescribed by his doctors.204
197 Edna Tr. 15–16; Covell Dep. 58:1–3. 198 Edna Tr. 15–16; Kimberlyn Tr. 455:13–17. 199 JX 58 at E.Williams000581, E.Williams000591, E.Williams000893. 200 Edna Tr. 16:7–11. 201 See, e.g., JX 6 at Plaintiffs 000294. 202 See, e.g., JX 6 at Plaintiffs 000294. 203 See JX 58 at E.Williams000886; JX 6 at Plaintiffs 000294 (“Apparently, he has voiced concerns about his medications to one or all of you kids, be he does not tell the whole story. Firstly, at least 80% of what he is taking is prescribed by doctors. Aside from those, he is taking four supplements that have anti-metastatic properties. Before I ever ordered these from Amazon, I discussed them with him.”). 204 JX 58 at E.Williams000463 (internal quotation marks omitted).
27 Ronald regularly experienced pain in his chest and shortness of breath.205
He had difficultly eating and a restricted diet, and he experienced steady weight
loss.206 He became “quite frail and thin,” requiring physical therapy for
strengthening.207 Ronald was a high “fall risk,”208 and he eventually fell in his
marital home and needed first a rolling walker, then a wheelchair.209 Ronald
needed assistance moving, travelling, going to the bathroom, and with daily
living.210 At least one person needed to accompany him to medical appointments
and elsewhere.211 And he came to require constant care and assistance in the
home.212
Because he physically struggled to complete basic tasks, others assisted
Ronald with filling out paperwork.213 As early as March 2017, Edna assisted
Ronald with completing paperwork.214 Edna testified that she was “in the habit of
205 See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Willaims000460, E.Williams000462. 206 See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000059, E.Williams000439, E.Williams000447, E.Willaims000460. 207 JX 58 at E.Williams000462; see also JX 58 at E.Willaims000449, E.Williams000454. 208 JX 58 at E.Williams000439, Williams000453, E.Williams000982. 209 See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000444, E.Williams000506. 210 See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000445, E.Williams000449, E.Williams000981–82. 211 See Kimberlyn Tr. 410–11, 414–15. 212 See Donna Tr. 846–47. 213 See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams00594; Edna Tr. 26:12–27:2. 214 JX 58 at E.Williams000594; Edna Tr. 26:12–27:2.
28 doing this for [her] husband, first of all, because he was experiencing tremors
which made it difficult for him to write. And . . . he was losing manual
dexterity.”215 When Ronald entered his daughters’ care and as his health worsened
throughout 2017, Ronald similarly allowed Donna and Kimberlyn to assist in
completing paperwork.216
From the time Ronald began developing serious conditions until July 2017,
Edna was his primary caregiver.217 As Edna explained, even as early as 2002, and
despite the fact that Ronald was “a very intelligent man,” she attended his doctor’s
visits and helped explain what the doctors were treating him for and what
procedures he was receiving.218 While Edna recuperated from a disabling car
accident in 2014, Ronald assisted her with her daily activities.219 Edna, in turn,
was there for Ronald during his significant health issues later in life.220
In the last two years of Ronald’s life, Edna’s care and effort on her
husband’s behalf increased exponentially.221 As of March 2017, Edna was
215 Edna Tr. 26:19–22. 216 See Kimberlyn Tr. 428:5–6. 217 Edna Tr. 17:16–17; see also JX 58. 218 Edna Tr. 17:20–18:14. 219 Edna Tr. 55. 220 Edna Tr. 28. 221 Edna Tr. 18–19.
29 devoting nearly all of her time to caring for Ronald.222 She assisted Ronald with
nearly everything, including getting in and out of a car, dressing, shopping,
cooking, cleaning, paying the bills, daily blood pressure and temperature readings,
and communicating with Ronald’s medical professionals.223 As Ronnie testified, it
was “amazing” to watch Edna care for Ron.224 And Donna “admired” Edna for
the very good care she provided Ron.225
While Edna provided admirable care for Ronald, at least after her accident,
she kept the marital home in deplorable condition that made it very difficult for a
sick man to live.226 According to his medical records, Ronald expressed concern
that the condition of the home took a toll on his health: “The patient states that he
has lost significant weight. He was living with his wife, who he has separated
from, who was not supportive. He notes that she is a ‘hoarder’ and the
environment limited his appetite.”227 Donna described the house as “atrocious:”228
“It was just always animals, so dogs, cats. . . . Hair on the floor from the dogs.
222 Edna Tr. 28. 223 Edna Tr. 19, 28–29; Ronnie Tr. 972:8–20. 224 Ronnie Tr. 972-73. 225 Ronnie Tr. 972. 226 See Kimberlyn Tr. 513–20; JX 19. 227 JX 58 at E.Williams000460. 228 Donna Tr. 662; JX 19.
30 Kitchen pretty much was food on the floor, food on the table, dishes in the sink.”229
Edna was a vociferous online shopper, and papers and packages covered the
floors.230 The house was so cluttered that Ronald was unable to move about safely
and without difficulty, and the conditions caused Ronald to fall on multiple
occasions.231 Eventually, Ronnie began renovating Ronald’s bedroom in
preparation for in-home dialysis, so Ronald began using the living room as a
bedroom.232 And although the renovations made the conditions worse, they were
not the cause.233 Rather, “[t]his is how she lived.”234
Aside from sometimes eating at his bedside table, Ronald could hardly eat in
the house.235 Edna did not cook much, and Ronald had a limited appetite and
preferred to order Chinese food.236 But Edna still bought large quantities of
groceries that went uneaten and expired.237 These were left throughout the house,
229 Donna Tr. 662; JX 19. 230 Donna Tr. 663–64; JX 19. 231 Donna Tr. 663:2–7, 664; JX 19. 232 See, e.g., Kimberlyn Tr. 519:1–5. 233 Donna Tr. 663–64, 665–66. 234 Donna Tr. 663:15–664:9. 235 Donna Tr. 667. 236 Donna Tr. 667:11–20, 668:8–11; Kimberlyn Tr. 518:5–8. 237 Kimberlyn Tr. 517:21–518:8.
31 in the back of her car, and in multiple refrigerators and freezers filled to
capacity.238 Edna refused to throw away rotten and expired food.239
Donna and Kimberlyn knew that Ronald’s “safety was an issue” at home.240
They tried to help Edna clean the house and throw away expired food, but Edna
refused and became angry, accusing them of stealing and throwing things away.241
Edna was in denial.242
After watching Edna remove expired food from their trash can, Ronald
became frustrated.243 So he asked Donna to take photos of the house, saying
“sarcastically” that “you never know, we may need them.” 244 Donna did so, and
those photos were submitted at trial.245 They are consistent with Donna and
Kimberlyn’s testimony: the house was cluttered, the floors were covered in debris,
packages were piled up, and the rooms were so crowded that it would have been
238 Kimberlyn Tr. 516:17–517:18, 517:21–518:4. 239 Donna Tr. 663, 664–65. 240 Donna Tr. 665–66. 241 Donna Tr. 663–64, 665–66. 242 Donna Tr. 665–66. 243 Donna Tr. 665–66. 244 Donna Tr. 664–65. 245 See JX 19; Donna Tr. 666:2–5 (“You know, so in my mind I laughed because I was just like, because I did exactly what he asked me to do. Granted, he was right. We needed them.”).
32 difficult for anyone to navigate.246 And the freezer was crammed with food left in
grocery bags.247
The responsibility of taking care of Ronald was “overwhelming.”248 And
Ronald was frustrated and irritable at the loss of his independence.249 Donna began
to fear Edna was suffering from caregiver burnout.250 As Donna explained,
caregiver burnout can happen easily for primary caretakers that have little relief:
“she seemed to me she was wearing down. And it showed. Just in interactions, in
conversations, things of that case. . . . She was annoyed a lot. She didn’t get much
sleep. If my father needed something, she was the one that had to do it.”251
Edna’s burnout manifested in her criticizing and chastising Ronald.252 She
became verbally and physically abusive.253 Edna spoke to and treated Ronald in a
“manner which was almost belittling.”254 She criticized him for having accidents
246 See JX 19 at Plaintiffs 000225–30, 000232. 247 See JX 19 at Plaintiffs 000227. 248 Donna Tr. 670. 249 Edna Tr. 100:19–24; Ronnie Tr. 970:19–21. 250 Donna Tr. 670:7–671:6. 251 Donna Tr. 670–71. 252 See, e.g., Donna Tr. 652–53. 253 See, e.g., Donna Tr. 652–53; Patricia Tr. 736:8–13; see also JX 63 (noting “physical and emotional abuse”). 254 Donna Tr. 652–53.
33 that he could not control.255 And “if he had an accident in his clothes or something
like that, she would make him stay that way until she felt like changing him. Then
she was really rough changing him. He was scared of her.”256 And Edna
controlled other aspects of Ronald’s life, including his finances. 257 For example,
Edna did not give Ronald cash and questioned him when he had it. 258 In response,
Ronald hid his change from the grocery store so that he could avoid a barrage of
questions from Edna.259 Ronald informed Donna and Kimberlyn that Edna was
treating him this way.260
By April 2017, Donna and Kimberlyn were accompanying Ronald and Edna
to his medical appointments.261 Ronald also had a visiting nurse.262 But Donna felt
that Edna needed further assistance to care for Ronald.263 In May 2017, Donna
took leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) in order to help Edna
care for Ronald.264 Ronald “did not like the fact that people had to take care of
255 Donna Tr. 652–53. 256 Patricia Tr. 736:8–13. To be clear, Edna never hit Ronald. Id. 257 Kimberlyn Tr. 514:1–14. 258 Kimberlyn Tr. 514:1–14. 259 Kimberlyn Tr. 514:7–10. 260 See Donna Tr. 736; Kimberlyn Tr, 514:1–4. 261 See JX 58 at E.Williams000590. 262 See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000536. 263 See Donna Tr. 655:15–24, 656–57. 264 Donna Tr. 655:15–24, 656–57, 661:11–23, 670–71; JX 58 at E.Williams000545.
34 him.”265 At first it was difficult for him to accept his daughter Donna’s assistance
with his physical needs.266 But eventually, because of her nursing skills, Ronald
allowed Donna to help him.267 Kimberlyn also started spending more time with
Ronald.268
On July 24, 2017, Edna took Ronald to the emergency room because he was
dehydrated.269 The next day, Edna informed Donna that Ronald “could not
manage the step up into the house.”270 When Edna pulled him up, they both fell.271
Edna told Donna that she was “not going to be able to get him to the doctor and to
dialysis by [her]self anymore.”272 Edna needed Donna’s help, as did Ronald.273
D. Ronald Moves Out For The Last Time
In the summer of 2017, Ronald began complaining to his daughters about
certain aspects of his healthcare.274 Ronald was unhappy with the number of
265 Donna Tr. 654–55. 266 Donna Tr. 654–55. 267 Donna Tr. 654–55. 268 Kimberlyn Tr. 264:1–18. 269 Edna Tr. 150:1–6. 270 JX 3 at Plaintiffs 000285. 271 JX 3 at Plaintiffs 000285. 272 JX 3 at Plaintiffs 000285. 273 JX 3 at Plaintiffs 000285–86; Edna Tr. 151:11–152:2. 274 See Donna Tr. 659.
35 medications he had to take.275 His primary gripe concerned the non-prescribed
supplements that Edna ordered for him online and instructed him to take.276 They
often made him feel ill and vomit.277 Ronald told Edna that “he had in issue with
taking supplements,” resulting in a “disagreement.”278 He felt like Edna was not
listening to him.279
Ronald also complained to his daughters about Edna’s abuse and the
condition of his home.280 He told them Edna “would chastise him” and “talk to
him like he was a child.”281 Ronald said this “[d]idn’t make him feel like a man”
and that “he didn’t like to be talked to like that.”282 Because Ronald was steadily
losing his independence and because “[h]e was a prideful man,” Edna’s words
were especially hurtful.283
In July 2017, even in the midst of their collective efforts to care for Ronald,
tensions built between Edna and Ronald and consequently between Edna and his
daughters. Edna felt that Donna and Kimberlyn were “out to get [her],” and was
275 Donna Tr. 659:6–8. 276 Donna Tr. 659:8–12. 277 Kimberlyn Tr. 513:19–24. 278 Donna Tr. 600:22–661:3. 279 Kimberlyn Tr. 513:14–15. 280 Kimberlyn Tr. 514:3–24; Donna Tr. 653–54. 281 Kimberlyn Tr. 514:3–4; accord Donna Tr. 653–54. 282 Donna Tr. 653–64. 283 Donna Tr. 654–55.
36 concerned about what others thought about the state of her marriage.284 Edna also
pointed out that Ronald would “act differently” when his children were present,
standing up for himself. 285 Donna explained that all she wanted was for her father
“to be at peace.”286
Donna and Edna wanted to avoid a repeat of 2012.287 They knew that
Ronald did not have much time left.288 On July 26, Ronald called a family meeting
for Donna and Kimberlyn to air out their issues with Edna.289 The conversation
began calmly, but became more heated, and Edna, Kimberlyn, and Donna began to
shout at one another.290 Kimberlyn was angry and defended Ronald after Edna
insulted Ronald:
She made a comment to my father about how do you think it makes me feel when I have to clean your sh*tty *ss. Of course I stepped up and said, “That is what you’re suppose[d] to do. You are his wife.”291
284 See JX 6 at Plaintiffs 000289; Edna Tr. 152:13–20; Donna Tr. 675:1–17. 285 JX 6 at Plaintiffs 000295; Donna Tr. 676:13–677:3 (“[M]y dad was happy to see us when we were there. I also agree when we were there, my personal opinion is that my father knew that we had his best interest in mind. . . . I feel like, you know, he did act differently. I mean, here it says, ‘I don’t know if it’s a macho thing’ but I don’t know, you know, maybe he felt better that we were there.”). 286 JX 6 at Plaintiffs 000289. 287 JX 6; Edna Tr. 153:10–154:6. 288 Donna Tr. 675. 289 Donna Tr. 681. 290 Edna Tr. 267:1–10; 265:11–21. 291 Kimberlyn Tr. 521–22; accord Donna Tr. 676–77.
37 In the heat of the moment, Kimberlyn yelled that Ronald was dying, and he began
to cry.292 The meeting ended once everyone had calmed down; Donna and Kim
offered to spend more time with their father to give Edna a break.293 Donna and
Kimberlyn left Edna and Ronald’s home under the belief that they had resolved
their problems.294
Edna was angry that Ronald did not defend her in front of his daughters and
shared those feelings with him.295 Ronald concluded “[i]t was clear that she had
lied and never had any intentions of trying to move forward in working things out
with [his] daughters.”296 He “sided” with his daughters.297
While Ronald had previously considered marital counseling, by this point
Ronald was very frustrated with Edna and concluded that their relationship could
not be saved. 298 He decided to leave Edna for the second and final time on July
30.299
292 Edna Tr. 67:13–18. 293 Donna Tr. 682:12–18; Kimberlyn Tr. 522:21–523:4. 294 See Kimberlyn Tr. 265:14–21. 295 Edna Tr. 196:20–197:1; JX 63 (“I was exhausted because all night I was unable to get any rest due to her blaming me that I did not defend her the night before and I took my daughter’s side.”). 296 JX 63. 297 JX 63. 298 See Kimberlyn Tr. 523–24, Ronnie Tr. 1001:10–13, 1002:12–13. 299 See, e.g., Kimberlyn Tr. 523–24.
38 That day, Ronald asked Kimberlyn to come to his house.300 Kimberlyn
arrived with her Lawrence, Ashly, and her friend Chris.301 Ronald told Kimberlyn
that he wanted to leave and go to a nursing home: “I don’t want to be here with
her no more. I am sick of her stuff. I want to go. I want out of here.” 302
Kimberlyn called Donna and informed her that Ronald wanted Donna to
come to his house because he wanted to go to a nursing home. 303 The news
shocked Donna.304 Donna arrived at the house.305 Ronald said that “[h]e was tired
of [Edna’s] sh*t” and that “[h]e was getting tired of her chastising him, talking to
him like a child.”306 Edna was not happy that Ronald wanted to leave, and tried to
insert herself into his conversation with Donna and Kimberlyn. 307 She was having
“little rages of fits” and making “sly, slick remarks to Ronald.”308
Donna concluded that both Ronald and Edna were tired and needed a break
from one another, so she suggested that Ronald stay with her for the night.309
300 Kimberlyn Tr. 523–24. 301 Kimberlyn Tr. 524:9–15. 302 Kimberlyn Tr. 523–25. 303 Kimberlyn Tr. 523–26; Donna Tr. 684. 304 Donna Tr. 685:3–7. 305 Donna Tr. 686. 306 Donna Tr. 686. 307 Kimberlyn Tr. 529. 308 Kimberlyn Tr. 529. 309 Donna Tr. 687–88.
39 Ronald agreed and reiterated that he just “want[ed] to leave.”310 Edna “reluctantly
agreed.”311 They began gathering Ronald’s belongings for the night, and tensions
flared.312 When they asked if Edna could help get Ronald’s clothing together,
Edna remarked that “he was a grown *ss man” and that “[h]e can get his own
clothes together.”313 Right before they left, Edna told Ronald,“[I]f you die before
you come back home, I will never forgive you.”314
Everyone got in their respective cars, and Ashly was prepared to drive
Ronald’s vehicle.315 Several weeks earlier, Ronald and Edna had agreed that Ashly
could use his vehicle while hers was being repaired.316 Edna stopped them and
threatened that, if Ashly took the vehicle, she would cancel its insurance or report
it stolen.317 In response, Kimberlyn physically threatened Edna as Lawrence held
Kimberlyn back.318 Donna broke up the fight, and they left, leaving Ronald’s
310 Donna Tr. 687–88. 311 Donna Tr. 687. 312 Donna Tr. 688. 313 Donna Tr. 688. 314 Kimberlyn Tr. 529. 315 Kimberlyn Tr. 532:7–9. 316 Kimberlyn Tr. 531:14–532:4. 317 Kimberlyn Tr. 532: 12–14, 532:23–533:7; Edna Tr. 168:15–18. 318 Donna Tr. 689.
40 vehicle behind.319 Kimberlyn drove Ronald to Donna’s house.320 Ronald said that
he never wanted to go back to his marital home.321
After leaving, Ronald wanted to withdraw money from an ATM so that he
could buy some Chinese food, so Kimberlyn took him to the ATM.322 Ronald’s
card was declined.323 Ronald concluded Edna had done something to prevent him
from getting his money; in fact, in the days that followed, Ronald learned Edna had
reported his card as stolen.324 Ronald grew concerned that Edna would take further
measures to keep him from his assets.325 Ronald contacted the bank and informed
the bank that Edna was not authorized to speak for him and “let them know what
[his] intentions [were].”326
Ronald believed that Edna was a bad caregiver, and he was displeased with
their relationship.327 After he left, Edna repeatedly called Ronald, questioning him
319 Kimberlyn Tr. 533:19–22; Donna Tr. 689. 320 Kimberlyn Tr. 536:12–21. 321 Kimberlyn Tr. 536:12–21. 322 Kimberlyn Tr. 534:3–20; Donna Tr. 690:13–24. 323 Kimberlyn Tr. 534:24–535:5. 324 Edna Tr. 114:13–115:1, 168:21–23, 171:17–20; Kimberlyn Tr. 535:12–17, 596:3–5; Donna Tr. 743:2–744:6. 325 Kimberlyn Tr. 596:21–597:1. 326 JX 63. 327 Kimberlyn Tr. 540.
41 about when he would return home.328 Edna’s sister sent Ronald harassing text
messages.329 The “non-stop” calls and messages upset Ronald.330 He was angry
about the incident with his vehicle: “after the incident with the truck, he said he
was done with Edna. He did not want to come back.”331 And he was also angry
that Edna had reported his card stolen.332 Ronald decided to leave Edna for
good.333 “He was mad. He said he was tired of this and he . . . he didn’t want to
go through this again. He said he didn’t want to be with her anymore.”334
On July 31, Ronald went back to his home to collect the remainder of his
belongings, including his medications.335 Lawrence, Chris, and Kimberlyn went
with him.336 Concerned about the altercation between Kimberlyn and Edna the
328 Donna Tr. 691:23–693:7. 329 JX 21 (“That’s how I’ll remember you. I don’t know that I will ever see you again, because you have made a tragic mistake leaving your life in the hands of those girls, and because you are a moron about you [sic] meds you’ll be dead sooner than you should have been. So smoke up, have a blast and most importantly stop those annoying meds and doctor appointments. Hope the girls enjoy your last days wiping your . . . .”); see also Kimberlyn Tr. 602:16–604:7; Donna Tr. 694:1–8. 330 Donna Tr. 693–94, 695. 331 Kimberlyn Tr. 536. 332 Donna Tr. 693:20–23 (“I can tell you that he was upset one, because this is at this point they found out that his car[d] was reported stolen. I do believe he was irritated about that.”). 333 See Kimberlyn Tr. 536–39. 334 Kimberlyn Tr. 536–39. 335 Donna Tr. 692; Kimberlyn Tr. 536–39. 336 Kimberlyn Tr. 536:24–537:3.
42 previous day, Kimberlyn and Ronald agreed that Kimberlyn should arrange a
police escort.337 An officer met them at the house.338
Ronald and Chris went inside to remove his belongings.339 Edna tried to
speak to Ronald, but he did not want to interact with her, and the officer told her
not to speak to him.340 Nonetheless, Edna pressed that Ronald was taken against
his will.341 The police did not react to Edna’s allegation and continued to identify
items to be retrieved for Ronald.342 Ronald could not find his walker, glasses, and
a number of medications.343 Edna claimed that she did not know where his walker
was, and his glasses later materialized in Edna’s vehicle.344 Edna hid these items,
consistent with her destruction of Ronald’s valuables in the past.345
The first few weeks caring for Ronald were very difficult for Donna, but she
did what she had to for Ronald’s well-being.346 Because Ronald had only planned
on staying one day, Donna and Kimberlyn were not prepared for his extended
337 Kimberlyn Tr. 537:6–18. 338 Kimberlyn Tr. 537:19–24; 539:1–4. 339 Kimberlyn Tr. 537:19–24; 539:1–4. 340 See JX 63; Edna Tr. 80. 341 Edna Tr. 162:5–163:3. 342 Edna Tr. 162:5–163:3. 343 See JX 63; see also Kimberlyn Tr. 536–39; Donna Tr. 694–95. 344 See JX 63; see also Kimberlyn Tr. 536–39; Donna Tr. 694–95. 345 See JX 63. Edna denies his accusation. See Edna Tr. 197:22–198:8. 346 Donna Tr. 699–701.
43 stay.347 They spent the first week with him trying to organize all of his various
appointments and needs.348 They devoted themselves to Ronald, and planned their
lives around their new responsibility.349 Just as Edna had done when Ronald was
living with her, Donna and Kimberlyn tended to Ronald’s every need.350 They
helped him around the house and either took him to his medical appointments or
arranged paratransit. 351
E. Edna’s Continued Harassment After Ronald Left
After July 31, Ronald never returned to the marital house. And but for one
meeting, Edna never saw or spoke to Ronald again. Ronald moved in with
Donna.352 He made it clear to his daughters and others that he did not want to be
with Edna and that he did not want her to be involved in the last months of his
life.353 For example, Ronald’s medical records demonstrate that he considered
himself “separated” from Edna and that she was no longer his primary caregiver.354
347 Donna Tr. 698:18–699:8. 348 Donna Tr. 698:18–699:8. 349 See JX 44; Donna Tr. 698:7–20. 350 Cf. Ronnie Tr. 972:8–9. 351 Donna Tr. 701. 352 See, e.g., Patricia Tr. 736–737. 353 See, e.g., Kimberlyn Tr. 536–39; Patricia Tr. 736:1–13. 354 See JX 58 at E.Williams000438, E.Williams000945.
44 And he told Patricia that “he didn’t want to be with [Edna]” because “she was very
abusive to him.”355
But Edna continued to be “a thorn in his side.”356 In addition to sending
harassing messages, she reported his ATM card stolen so he was unable to
withdraw funds from the joint account.357 When Ronald moved in with Donna, he
directed the Office of Pensions to send his documents to Donna’s Newark
address.358 But on September 9, 2017, Edna completed an Office of Pensions
change of address form to list Edna’s Smyrna’s address.359 If accepted, this form
would have diverted Ronald’s mail from the Office of Pensions, potentially
including his pension and Death Benefit checks and other benefit information,
back to Edna.360 The signature appearing on the document is not Ronald’s.361
Edna testified that she did not sign and submit this form, even though she
agreed that the signature at the bottom was not Ronald’s and that Ronald was
355 Patricia Tr. 736:1–13. 356 Patricia Tr. 700:7. 357 See Edna Tr. 114:13–115:1, 168:21–23, 171:17–20; Kimberlyn Tr. 535:12–17, 596:3– 5; Donna Tr. 743:2–744:6; see also JX 63. 358 Edna Tr. 120:9–11; Donna Tr. 707:2–14. 359 JX 24. 360 JX 24. 361 Donna Tr. 707:2–7.
45 living with Donna at that time.362 Donna likewise did not recognize the signature
as Ronald’s and stated that the first time she saw this document was a few days
before trial.363 I find that Edna completed and forged Ronald’s signature on that
document to divert his state benefits, and related information, back to her.364
And Edna turned to the police, Adult Protective Services (“APS”), and
Family Court to continue to harass Ronald. She filed another PFA against Donna
and Kimberlyn based on the July 30 incident (“Edna’s 2017 PFA”) but did not
appear at court to pursue it, and the Court denied the PFA.365 On August 3, Edna
called the police, who reported to Donna’s home to perform a welfare check. 366
Ronald told the officer “that [he] was here on [his] own free will and did not want
to return, that [he] was just fine.”367 The police left.368 And on August 16, Edna
362 Edna Tr. 117:10–120:6; Ronnie Tr. 982:2–983:10. 363 Donna Tr. 706:19–707:7. 364 See JX 24. 365 See JX 63; Edna Tr. 177:9–17; Kimberlyn Tr. 416, 417, 418, 541:24–542:7; Donna Tr. 726:7–727:7. Donna and Kimberlyn were of the understanding that Edna was trying to obtain a PFA against Ron, as well as Kimberlyn and Donna. Kimberlyn Tr. 416, 417. But, her PFA was only sought by Edna against Kimberlyn and Donna. Edna Tr. 177:9– 11; Kimberlyn Tr. 418. And when asked why she did not file a second PFA to protect her from Donna and Kimberlyn, Edna replied, “Quite honestly, my husband was dying and was away from me. I had bigger fish to fry.” Edna Tr. 178:3–7. 366 See JX 63; Donna Tr. 723:5–724:17. 367 JX 63; see also Donna Tr. 723:5–724:17. 368 Donna Tr. 723:6–724:17.
46 filed a complaint with APS, claiming Ronald was “coerced in leaving.”369 Edna
had APS contact Donna that day to inquire about Ronald’s condition and Donna’s
home environment.370 The next day, Edna sent APS to check on Ronald at
dialysis.371 Ronald “signed papers stating that he did not want their services. He
explained to them that he was where he wanted to be. He didn’t want to have
anything to do with Edna. He didn’t want to talk to her. He just wanted to be left
alone.”372 APS reported to Edna that Ronald was fine.373
On August 12, Edna confronted Ronald at his dialysis center.374 According
to Ronald, “she showed up at my dialysis center bad mouthing me and trying to
convince me that my daughters were trying to put me in a nursing home,” and she
was “getting me all upset.”375 Edna was asked to leave.376 This was the last time
Ronald spoke with or saw Edna.377
369 Edna Tr. 207:20–24, 208:19–23, 209:5; Kimberlyn Tr. 550:3–7. 370 JX 63. 371 Edna Tr. 207:20–208:5. 372 Kimberlyn Tr. 550:15–19. 373 Edna Tr. 208:13–18. 374 Edna Tr. 184:11–20; Donna Tr. 729:5–16. 375 JX 63. 376 Edna Tr. 184:18–20, 185:6–13; Donna Tr. 730:11–24. 377 Edna Tr. 187:7–12, 187:20–22.
47 Ronald became adamant that he would not return to her.378 He reported
Edna’s harassment to the police.379 An officer came to Donna’s home to speak to
Ronald, but the officer told Ronald there was not much he could do.380 If Ronald
was “adamant about the harassment, he would have to file a PFA against her.”381
Indeed, Ronald filed an emergency ex parte PFA against Edna on August 18,
2017 (“Ronald’s PFA”).382 The court granted Ronald’s PFA that day, to last until
the hearing scheduled for August 31.383 A Delaware Family Court employee
recommended that Ronald prepare a written statement to attach to his petition.384
Accordingly, Ronald dictated a statement that Donna typed for him. 385 She read
the statement back to Ronald, and he agreed that it said exactly what he wanted it
to say, and signed it.386
378 Donna Tr. 697:4-7. 379 Donna Tr. 728:1–3, 728:11–23. 380 Donna Tr. 728:17–21. 381 Donna Tr. 728:22–23. 382 See JX 59; see also JX 18; JX 27; JX 63; Kimberlyn Tr. 540:12–14; Donna Tr. 739:8– 18. 383 JX 63; Donna Tr. 758:20–759:16. 384 Donna Tr. 548:21–549:9. 385 See JX 63; Donna Tr. 543:8–24. At the top of the statement in Ronald’s handwriting appears “I Ronald R. Williams do authorize my daughter to type all the information.” JX 63. 386 Kimberlyn Tr. 543:1–19; 548:8–16; Donna Tr. 759:20–760:15; JX 63. The signature on the statement matches Ronald’s signature and was notarized by the clerk of the Family Court. See Tr. 191:18–195:2.
48 In the statement, Ronald described Edna’s harassment and verbal abuse and
his desire to leave his wife and die in peace.387 Ronald stated that “[s]he has been
nonstop trying to get me to come home.”388 He recounted Edna’s and her sister’s
harassing messages, Edna’s frivolous PFA, Edna’s efforts to call the police on
Ronald’s daughters, APS appearing to check on him at dialysis, and Edna’s efforts
to stop Ronald from accessing his money.389 Ronald described his humiliation:
I am 70 years old and this stress she is causing is detrimental to my health. Over the past year off and on I have dealt with all types personal and emotional abuse. She has talked to me like I was a child and chastised me for having accidents and belittled me for having accidents and not being able to do things that she felt maybe I should be able to do. She has constantly reminded me and my daughters that she has to clean me up all the time. Making me feel depressed and ashamed. I would like to charge her with elderly abuse because of my living conditions being unsafe, cluttered, kitchen unsanitary, cat and dog hair everywhere.390
He concluded, “I would very much prefer for her to stop trying to contact me,
constantly harassing my daughters and accept things for the way they are and leave
us alone.”391
On August 31, Ronald, Kim and Donna appeared for Ronald’s PFA hearing,
but it was continued to September 15, because Edna had not been served.392 Edna
387 JX 63. 388 JX 63. 389 JX 63. 390 JX 63. 391 JX 63.
49 did not appear at the hearing on September 15.393 At that hearing, Kimberlyn and
Donna sat in the gallery, watching Ronald speak with the Court for approximately
ten minutes.394 The Court granted a one-year PFA in favor of Ronald and against
Edna.395
The PFA did not deter Edna from contacting Ronald. Around September 21,
Edna sent Ronald a letter at the dialysis center.396 The letter recognizes that
Ronald chose to leave Edna.397 The letter was not received until after Ronald’s
death.398
Edna also continued calling APS.399 In October, about two days before
Ronald passed away, she caused APS to return to Donna’s home to investigate his
declining health.400 Donna did not speak with APS, but only led them to Ronald’s
392 JX 59; Donna Tr. 7621:24–762:19. 393 Kimberlyn Tr. 547:17–548:7; Donna Tr. 763:2–766:3. 394 Kimberlyn Tr. 547:17–548:7; Donna Tr. 763:2–766:3. 395 JX 27. 396 See JX 22; Edna Tr. 171:21–23, 172:6–10. 397 See JX 22 at Plaintiffs 000051 (“You left under the pretense of going to Donna’s for an overnight visit.”), 000054 (“I feel as though for you to do this to me, you could never had loved me in any way, shape, or form.”), 000058 (“And since you choose to leave me in the dark, how was I supposed to know you expected any thing different?”), 000059 (“I will have no good memories of you because they will all be tarnished by what you have done.”). 398 Donna Tr. 766:20–22, 767:8–13. 399 See Edna Tr. 209:23–210:1; Kimberlyn Tr. 549:13–21; Donna Tr. 766:15–24. 400 Edna Tr. 224:6–225:6; Kimberlyn Tr. 550:3–7; Donna Tr. 767:14–768:10.
50 bedroom: “When they went down there, they looked at my father, turned around
and looked at me and said, I’m so sorry, and left.”401 APS told Edna that Ronald
was receiving care.402
Ronald did not mention or consider divorcing Edna after he left her in July
2017.403 Unlike 2012, he was not concerned about losing material things and was
resolved that Edna, as his wife, would receive their houses, cars, and other
property.404 As discussed below, Ronald’s primary financial concerns were his
upcoming funeral expenses and making changes to ensure his daughters would not
bear the burden of those costs. Otherwise, Ronald’s chief concern was living the
last days of his life free from the stress caused by his relationship with Edna: “I
just want peace. I just want to die in peace.”405
401 Donna Tr. 768:4–15. 402 Edna Tr. 224:24–225:1. 403 Donna Tr. 639:14–24. 404 Donna Tr. 639:14–24, 912:2–8. Ronald did prepare a will that would have left his estate to his daughters. See JX 26. He unsuccessfully attempted to execute that will once, but never attempted to again. I believe that Ronald was at peace with Edna receiving his estate as his wife and that he was primarily focused on making changes to his MetLife Policy and Death Benefit. 405 Donna Tr. 639:14–24.
51 F. Ronald’s Mental Health
According to Edna, Ronald could not make decisions for himself after he left
her on July 30.406 Edna points to Ronald’s depression and a purported bout of
hallucinations due to prescribed opiate medications. While he sometimes
“denie[d] a depressed mood,”407 Ronald suffered from depression.408 He also had
anxiety from his physical complications, as well as his “complicated family
dynamics and strained relationships.”409 His doctors noted that his feelings were
“appropriate for the circumstances.”410 Ronald generally did not have difficulty
speaking,411 and had no difficulty communicating.412 He was able to fully recount
his medical history for doctors,413 even though sometimes “he had a difficult time
remembering all the information that he needed to provide.”414 Ronald was
406 Edna Tr. 166:12–24. 407 JX 58 at E.Williams000460; see also E.Williams000462. 408 See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000438–39. 409 JX 58 at E.Williams000447; see also JX 58 at E.Williams000444, E.Williams000467. 410 JX 58 at E.Williams000467. 411 See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000509 (noting he had “no difficulty with speech”), E.Williams00586 (noting Ronald could “verbalize” his concerns). 412 See JX 58 at E.Williams000461. 413 JX 58 at E.Williams000584–87. 414 Edna Tr. 26:23–24.
52 prescribed a litany of medications, including antidepressants, one antipsychotic,
and one antianxiety medication.415
Despite these complications, Ronald was otherwise in good mental
condition.416 His medical records from 2013 through 2017 repeatedly note that
Ronald was “alert, oriented, cooperative, and appropriately conversant,”417 that he
had “normal attention span and concentration,”418 and that his “mood and affect are
appropriate for [the] circumstance.”419 Ronald was able to comprehend his
treatment, understand communications with his doctors, and make decisions for
himself.420 The records explicitly state that Ronald was “oriented” and was not
“forgetful” or “disoriented.”421 Edna admits that throughout 2016, Ronald was
415 See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000590; Kaye Tr. 329:23–330:4. 416 See Donna Tr. 658 (noting Ronald was “was able to speak for himself,” “was alert,” and “was oriented,” and that “he ordered his own food, “had general conversation at the table” and that “[t]here was . . . nothing that showed that he was not of sound body and mind”); see also Kimberlyn Tr. 552–53, 605. 417 E.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000467, E.Williams000529, E.Williams000536, E.Williams000555, E.Williams000564. 418 E.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000462. 419 E.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000529. 420 See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000444–46, E.Williams000551, E.Williams000584–87; Donna Tr. 702. 421 JX 58 at E.Williams000542.
53 lucid.422 And Edna admits that none of Ronald’s doctors indicated that he was
incapable of making his own decisions before July 31, 2017.423
In fact, Ronald made all of his own medical decisions. Donna “did not need
[] to hold his hands on every encounter:”424 “He engaged in the conversation. He
understood. He acknowledged that he understood. If he didn’t understand
something particular, he would ask a question. If the doctor would clarify or I
would try to help him understand exactly what it is they were saying.”425 He
sometimes had difficulty understanding finances and other affairs, and his
daughters assisted him.426 And as discussed, as a result of his physical limits, they
helped him fill out paperwork. But the decisions were Ronald’s.427
Between July 20 and October 8, 2017, Kimberlyn saw her father at least six
days per week.428 In that time, he was never forgetful, confused about what he
wanted, confused about what he owned, or confused about what he wanted after he
422 Edna Tr. 135:3. 423 Edna Tr. 137:9–16. 424 Donna Tr. 702. 425 Donna Tr. 703. 426 Donna Tr. 703. 427 Donna Tr. 921:11–14 (“My father. We read everything. He gave us his decisions based off of his knowledge, not ours -- or his thoughts. I mean, we just filled it out for him.”). 428 Kimberlyn Tr. 552–53, 605.
54 passed; he did not suffer from delusions or hallucinations.429 And he even saw a
psychologist “[j]ust so he could express how he felt what he wanted. So he
wouldn’t be taken that he wasn’t in his right state of mind. So that he was talking
to a professional who he knew was advocating for him if his state of mind ever
became in question.”430
After Ron’s lung cancer diagnosis, he was prescribed oxycodone and
OxyContin for pain relief.431 Edna and her expert, Dr. Neil Kaye, made much of
the fact that these drugs could have interfered with Ronald’s cognition.432 But
Ronald’s medical records demonstrate that his opiate medications cognitively
impaired him on only one occasion, in May 2017.433 On May 1, Edna contacted
Ronald’s doctor to report that OxyContin caused Ronald to have “delirium.” 434
The doctors recommended that Ronald permanently stop OxyContin and continue
taking only oxycodone.435 On May 9, Ronald visited the doctor again,
429 Kimberlyn Tr. 552–53, 605. 430 Kimberlyn Tr. 552:23–553:4. 431 See, e.g., Edna Tr. 32; JX 58 at Williams000570. 432 See JX 48. 433 See JX 58 at E.Williams000570. 434 JX 58 at E.Williams000570. Medical records from May 2, 2017 state that Ronald’s “wife noticed mental status changes after starting OxyContin with visual and auditory hallucinations after starting oxycodone. She called yesterday and was instructed to stop the oxycodone. His mental status has improved.” JX 58 at E.Williams000563. 435 JX 58 at E.Williams000565.
55 accompanied by his daughters.436 Records from that visit state that after stopping
OxyContin, Ronald’s hallucinations had “resolved.”437 Ronald was “alert,
oriented, cooperative, and appropriately conversant.”438
Ronald did not experience any “mental status changes” or “hallucinations”
after May 2017. In fact, on August 21 and September 21, his doctors noted that
they assessed his “opioid risk” and that “[t]he patient score was 0 with low risk
category.”439 Ronald told his doctors that “he [was] not sure why he was take[n]
off of [OxyContin],” and speculated that it was because “his (ex?) wife had
‘thoughts’ about certain medications and may have had him stop taking this.”440
For his part, Ronald “state[d] that he thinks he did have a good response to the
Oxycontin.”441 That day, Ronald was “[a]lert and cooperative,” had “normal mood
and affect,” and had “normal attention span and concentration.”442 As a result,
Ronald’s doctors felt that it was safe to prescribe OxyContin at a lower dosage.443
436 JX 58 at E.Williams000554, E.Williams000556. 437 JX 58 at E.Williams000554. 438 JX 58 at E.Williams000555. 439 JX 58 at E.Williams000445, E.Williams000461. 440 JX 58 at E.Williams000463. 441 JX 58 at E.Williams000463. 442 JX 58 at E.Williams000462. 443 JX 58 at E.Williams000463.
56 Ronald and Edna were aware that they could and should contact his doctors
again if the hallucinations resumed, but they did not.444 Neither Ronald nor his
daughter reported that his medications were impairing his cognitive abilities, and
his medical records after August 21 demonstrate that Ronald was “alert” and
“answers questions appropriately,”445 was having an “appropriate[]” emotional
response to his circumstances,”446 was able to understand and comprehend the
doctor’s directions,447 was able to communicate his thoughts and concerns,448 and
was making decisions for himself.449
Dr. Kaye submitted an expert report and testified at trial on the potential
effects that Ronald’s medications, physical condition, and life circumstances could
have on his mental state.450 Dr. Kaye opined that Ronald was a “highly susceptible
individual” and reliant upon others for all of his needs.451 Much of Dr. Kaye’s
opinion is premised on the fact that Ronald needed assistance completing daily
444 See JX 58 at E.Williams000565. 445 JX 58 at E.Williams000447. 446 JX 58 at E.Williams000447. 447 See JX 58 at E.Williams000447, E.Williams000445. 448 See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000445–46. 449 See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000445–46. 450 See JX 48. Dr. Kaye is a board-certified psychiatrist, specializing in the brain, behavior, and emotion. Kaye Tr. 299. 451 JX 48.
57 activities and attending medical appointments.452 Dr. Kaye also posited, as Edna
had told Ronald’s doctors, that his opiate medications caused hallucinations and
made Ronald psychotic.453
Dr. Kaye’s opinion and testimony are not credible or supported. Ronald’s
medical records demonstrate that Ronald was in good mental health, considering
his physical conditions. He was alert, able to understand his conditions and
treatments, and able to make decisions. While he was heavily reliant on others for
his physical needs, his cognition was his own. His doctors did not express concern
that his mental state was declining, and they did not express that his depression or
anxiety were so crippling that Ronald could not think for himself. Dr. Kaye opined
that Ronald’s medications could impair his judgment and cause hallucinations.454
Ronald’s doctors agreed that his medications and conditions could affect his
mental status.455 But the record does not support a finding that Ronald actually
452 JX 48. 453 Kaye Tr. 311. 454 JX 48. 455 Dr. Covell noted that oxycodone or any narcotic could affect Ronald’s mental status. Covell Dep. at 50, 52. He also noted that Ronald’s conditions could cause altered thinking, including metastatic lung cancer, particularly if it had metastasized to the brain; end stage renal disease that required hemodialysis; cardiac issues; COPD; hypoxia, if his oxygen was low; chronic anemia; and sleep apnea. He never saw Ronald display these symptoms. Id. at 72. And Dr. Masters said that use of opiates or narcotics could have potentially serious side effects such as delirium or delusions. Masters Dep. at 64. Dr. Masters also stressed that chemotherapy and radiation could make people less aware mentally. Id. at 76.
58 suffered any cognitive impairment from his medications from July 2017 onward.456
The speculation by Edna and Dr. Kaye does not offer a substantial basis to believe
that Ronald’s mental state was materially different or impaired between the time he
executed the power of attorney in Edna’s favor on July 24 and the end of
September 2017.457
Edna’s testimony as to Ronald’s decision-making capabilities is not credible,
and is inconsistent with her own actions. Edna and Ronald discussed his final
wishes during June and July 2017.458 Edna prepared a power of attorney, and on
July 24, Ronald read and signed it.459 That document appointed Edna as his
primary agent and Ronnie as the contingent agent.460 According to Edna, Ronald
was interested, engaged, and competent to sign that power of attorney. 461 She was
not with Ronald when he signed the document, and she did not produce the
document in this case.462 But Edna does not question the validity of the power of
456 See generally JX 58 (noting time and again that Ronald was alert, aware, and able to make decisions for himself). 457 See Sloan v. Segal (Sloan II), 2010 WL 2169496, at *5 (Del. 2010) (TABLE). 458 Edna Tr. 140:8–15. 459 Edna Tr. 142:7–22. 460 Edna Tr. 143:12–144:8. 461 Edna Tr. 182:4–15. 462 Edna Tr. 143:12–144:8.
59 attorney executed in her favor.463 Thus, as recently as July 24, Edna believed that
Ronald had the capacity and mental faculties to execute binding legal
documents.464
And after Ronald executed the power of attorney in Edna’s favor, Edna and
Ronald decided to meet with Edna’s attorney, Jason Powell, Esquire, to draft estate
planning documents.465 Edna planned for Ronald to meet with Mr. Powell to sign
the remaining estate planning documents on August 2, with the understanding that
he would have the capacity to make his own decisions.466 Because Ronald left
Edna, this meeting never happened.467
Edna has offered no evidence that Ronald became incapable of making his
own decisions after July 24. And her testimony is inconsistent with
contemporaneous documents and testimony showing Ronald continued to make his
own decisions, including medical decisions and the decision to leave Edna.468
Edna also lacks personal knowledge of Ronald’s decision-making capabilities after
July 30, as she did not have any meaningful contact with him after that time. I
463 Edna Tr. 182:4–15. 464 See Edna Tr. 137:9–16. 465 Edna Tr. 141:7–142:9. 466 Edna Tr. 140:8–12, 142:14–19, 146:5–14. 467 Edna Tr. 142:14–19, 146:5–14. 468 See, e.g., JX 22; JX 58.
60 conclude Ronald retained his full mental faculties and could make his own
decisions until the first week of October 2017, shortly before his death.
But Ronald’s physical health continued to decline.469 Contrary to Edna’s
allegations, Kimberlyn and Donna were not to blame for Ronald’s worsening
condition, and they did their best to care for him in the last months of his life.470
While Ronald’s physical health declined steadily, his mental health did not decline
until the days before he died in October 2017.471
G. Ronald’s Decision To Remove Edna From His Finances And As A Beneficiary
Once Ronald left Edna, he also took measures to protect his finances. As in
2012, Ronald was concerned that Edna would drain their joint bank account.472 He
was concerned about his checks, his VA checks, his Social Security check, and his
pension.473 Accordingly, he took steps to ensure she would not infringe on his
469 See generally JX 58. 470 See generally JX 58 (demonstrating that Ronald’s daughters were his primary caregivers after July 30, 2017). 471 Donna Tr. 703. 472 Donna Tr. 601. Ronald even voiced his concerns to Patricia, saying that “every time he leaves [Edna] she ends up taking money out of the account, puts it into her account.” Patricia Tr. 743. 473 See Kimberlyn 596–97 (“He was concerned about his checks, his VA checks, his SSI check. And his pension, that he wouldn't be able to have access to that money.”), Donna Tr. 637–38 (“At this point he had stated he had checks that were getting ready to come in. He needed to make sure he had access to his money. He did not want to have what happened happen in 2012 where money was taken out of the account or, you know, issues with the bank account.”), 696.
61 funds, including “changing the accounts, having her taken off as authorized user[,
and] [m]aking sure that his checks went into an account he had access to.”474
Donna and Kimberlyn helped get Ronald’s finances in order.475
Ronald knew that certain checks were due to be deposited into his account,
so he acted quickly.476 With Donna’s assistance, on August 1, Ronald reopened
the DFCU Account that he had opened with Donna in 2012, and directed his
checks to be deposited there.477 Like Edna, Donna and Kimberlyn needed access
to Ronald’s bank accounts and credit cards to help him pay for things that he
wanted to buy because of his physical limitations.478 Ronald gave his daughters
access to his bank accounts so they could go to the ATM for him. 479 And with
Ronald’s approval, Donna and Kimberlyn used his credit cards. 480 They never
used his credit card or bank account without his permission.481 In addition to using
those accounts to pay for Ronald’s needs, Ronald also permitted his daughters to
474 Donna Tr. 601. 475 See, e.g., Donna Tr. 637–38, 696. 476 Donna Tr. 638–39. 477 Donna Tr. 636:6–638:6, 697:2–24, 704; see also JX 8; JX 9. 478 Kimberlyn Tr. 598:13–22. 479 Donna Tr. 703–04. 480 See Kimberlyn Tr. 599:3–20; see also JX 53. 481 Kimberlyn Tr. 599:21–23.
62 pay some of their own expenses as compensation for his care.482 In the same vein,
Kimberlyn’s husband, Lawrence, occasionally asked Ronald for money, and
Ronald gave it to him.483
Donna and Kimberlyn called financial institutions for Ronald, at Ronald’s
instruction and in his presence, in order to arrange to have Edna taken off his
accounts.484 Ronald spoke for himself and authorized his daughters to speak to on
his behalf.485 Edna had similarly communicated on Ronald’s behalf in the past.486
Donald and Kimberlyn also helped Ronald use a computer to find phone numbers
and other information.487
Edna makes much of the fact that Ronald allowed his daughters to access his
finances, and claims they took his money. But she admitted that upon moving in
with Donna and Kimberlyn, he would have continued to consume the same things
482 Kimberlyn Tr. 599:3–20. 483 Lawrence Tr. 872:9–14, 883:5–11. 484 See Donna Tr. 703–04 (“He wanted to talk to the bank, he could talk to the bank. Did we call the bank for him? We would make phone calls to them. At times I would make phone calls to his brother, hand him the phone. There were some things that we had to do for him, but it didn’t mean that he didn’t understand what was going on.”). 485 Donna Tr. 703–04; see also JX 43. 486 Cf. Edna Tr. 169:2–4, 241:7–8; JX 58 (demonstrating that Edna would contact doctors and complete forms on Ronald’s behalf). 487 Donna Tr. 703–04 (“He couldn’t look up phone numbers, or he didn’t have access to look up phone numbers because I don’t have a phone book in my house. So a lot of phone numbers that we had to look up were on the internet. We did those things for him, finances wise.”).
63 that he did while living with her.488 She could not quantify the money Donna and
Kimberlyn allegedly took, and she had no idea how Ronald spent his money while
living with Donna and Kimberlyn.489 I do not find Edna’s testimony that Donna
and Kimberlyn stole from Ronald or coerced him into giving them access to his
finances to be credible.
Ronald also removed Edna as the beneficiary on his accounts, replacing her
with Donna and Kimberlyn. On August 2, 2017, Kimberlyn took Ronald to the
state pension office so that he could route his pension checks to the DFCU
Account, rather than their joint account.490 Ronald also executed a change of
beneficiary form to remove Edna as the beneficiary of his Death Benefit, instead
naming Donna and Kimberlyn.491 Ronald made this change on his own volition.492
And although Ronald executed the change of beneficiary form in Donna and
Kimberlyn’s favor, the $7,000 Death Benefit was always intended to pay for
Ronald’s funeral expenses and was used for that purpose.493 Donna and Kimberlyn
still owe the funeral home approximately $5,000.494
488 Edna Tr. 232:21–233:11. 489 Edna Tr. 230:20–23, 233:14–19. 490 Kimberlyn Tr. 558:19–559:17, 560:4–22; JX 11. 491 Kimberlyn Tr. 558:19–559:17, 560:23–562:19; JX 10. 492 Kimberlyn Tr. 558:19–559:17, 560:23–562:19; Donna Tr. 705:16–21; JX 10. 493 Kimberlyn Tr. 557:7–558:8, 558:19–559:17, 560:23–562:19, 595–99; JX 32. 494 Kimberlyn Tr. 562:20–563:1; JX 47.
64 Ronald also decided to name Donna and Kimberlyn as the beneficiaries of
the MetLife Policy.495 At Ronald’s direction, Kimberlyn called MetLife in early
August.496 Kimberlyn and Ronald called on speakerphone so that Ronald could
hear and speak if necessary.497 Initially, a MetLife employee spoke to Ronald and
asked for permission for Kimberlyn to speak; he gave it.498 Kimberlyn informed
MetLife that Ronald wished to change the beneficiaries under his policy.499
MetLife informed them that they would mail Ronald an application form.500
Ronald received the form and filled it out with Kimberlyn.501 They attempted to
mail it back, but MetLife never received the application.502
In September, Ronald knew that he was going to die and began to get his
affairs in order, including how he and his daughters would pay for his funeral.503
He did not want Donna and Kimberlyn to be burdened with the expenses, and was
495 Kimberlyn Tr. 563:12–17 (“[B]ecause he changed the beneficiaries to the pension, burial pension, he wanted to change the beneficiaries to the MetLife policy.”); see also id. 264:15–265:10; Patricia Tr. 741:9–23. 496 Kimberlyn Tr. 565:11–24. 497 Kimberlyn Tr. 565:11–24. 498 Kimberlyn Tr. 566:1–3. 499 Kimberlyn Tr. 565:11–24. 500 Kimberlyn Tr. 566:3–6. 501 Kimberlyn Tr. 566:7–22. 502 Kimberlyn Tr. 566:7–22. 503 Kimberlyn Tr. 565:8–13, 567:1–7, 569:8–24 (“He wanted to go ahead and take care of his funeral arrangements, then get his coffin, all that stuff together before he died. He didn’t want me and my sister to be bothered with that burden.”).
65 adamant that these funds go to Donna and Kimberlyn to help them pay for his
funeral, rather than to Edna.504 They had not yet received a funeral estimate, but
had an appointment scheduled.505 So on September 12, he asked Kimberlyn to call
MetLife to request, on his behalf, that $20,000 of his policy be cashed out so that
Donna and Kimberlyn could cover his funeral expenses.506 As was their standard
practice, the call was on speakerphone, Ronald was present for the entirety of the
call,507 and the MetLife representative asked for Ronald’s permission to allow them
to discuss his policy with Kimberlyn.508 He gave it.509 Kimberlyn then assisted
Ronald with completing the necessary paperwork.510 MetLife approved the
advancement request, but Ronald and his daughters never received the check.511
Kimberlyn and Ronald received a new application and a new change of
beneficiary form from MetLife.512 Kimberlyn helped Ronald complete the forms,
504 See Kimberlyn Tr. 567:3–7. 505 Kimberlyn Tr. 453-455. 506 Kimberlyn Tr. 453–455, 565:8–13, 567:1–7, 569:8–24; see also JX 12. 507 Kimberlyn Tr. 565:16–20, 567:8–568:2; see also Lawrence Tr. 877:3–9 (“He would use the phone . . . They’re just assisting”); JX 43. 508 Kimberlyn Tr. 566:2–6, 567:8–568:2. 509 Kimberlyn Tr. 565:3–13, 567:8–568:2; JX 43. 510 JX 65. 511 Donna Tr. 775:7–14. 512 Kimberlyn Tr. 568:3–569:3.
66 and he signed them on September 13.513 They sent them back to MetLife.514 On
September 13, Donna and Kimberlyn became the beneficiaries of the MetLife
Policy.515 Ronald wanted to remove Edna as the beneficiary of the MetLife Policy,
and all of his daughters’ actions were done at Ronald’s request.516 The MetLife
Policy has not been paid out to Donna and Kimberlyn, and the entire $100,000
remains in MetLife’s possession.517
H. Ronald’s Decision To Excise Edna From His Burial Plans
By August, Ronald’s health was worsening and by mid-September 2017, his
doctors informed him that there was nothing else they could do; Ronald was going
to die.518 Ronald took the news about as well as anyone possibly could and
decided it was time to get his affairs in order.519 Donna and Kimberlyn purchased
a CD with forms for wills, powers of attorney, and last wishes documents.520
Donna and Kimberlyn assisted Ronald with executing a number of these
documents to fulfill his intention of removing Edna from his personal and medical
513 JX 66. 514 Kimberlyn Tr. 568:3–569:3, 445. 515 Kimberlyn Tr. 439; JX 25; JX 66. 516 Kimberlyn Tr. 570:1–18; Lawrence Tr. 886:11–887:14; Donna Tr. 777:2–778:21. 517 D.I. 132 at 62:20–63:9. 518 Donna Tr. 769:21–772:17; see also JX 44 at 259. 519 Kimberlyn Tr. 441:5–13; Donna Tr. 772:18–773:5. 520 Donna Tr. 773:7–12.
67 affairs in his last days. They “always had a conversation with [Ronald] about
every document that he had to sign, or that involved him.”521
On September 22, at the Dover Federal Credit Union, Ronald executed the
durable power of attorney form in favor of Kimberlyn and Donna.522 A Dover
Federal Credit Union employee witnessed and notarized the power of attorney, and
swore that she asked whether Ronald knew what he was signing and that “while
elderly and in a wheelchair, [Ronald] seemed fine.”523 When Ronald signed the
power of attorney, he had his full mental capacity.524 He executed this document
because “he wanted to take Edna out of the equation of making medical decisions
for him.”525
Ronald also completed a will form with Donna and Kimberlyn’s
assistance.526 Ronald asked Donna and Kimberlyn to fill out the will and
instructed them on what to write.527 Under this will, Donna and Kimberlyn would
have received Ronald’s estate, but they never asked for that nor pursued that;
521 Donna Tr. 617. 522 JX 28. 523 JX 42 ¶¶ 6, 8. 524 See Donna Tr. 787:21–22. 525 Kimberlyn Tr. 555:15–24. 526 JX 26. 527 Kimberlyn Tr. 577:2–578:2.
68 rather, they were comfortable with Edna receiving Ronald’s estate.528 Ronald tried
to execute the will at the Dover Federal Credit Union, but was instructed that he
would need an attorney to do so.529 Ronald died without executing the will.530
Within the first days of living with Donna, Kimberlyn asked Ronald whether
he still wanted to be buried with Edna.531 He said no, and that he did not want to
be anywhere near her.532 He told Donna the same and was adamant that he did not
want to be buried at Gracelawn with Edna.533
Three documents submitted at trial reflect Ronald’s wishes for his funeral
and burial: the application to be buried at the Veterans Cemetery, 534 a handwritten
“Statement of Wishes,”535 and two versions of a “Five Wishes Document.”536
Because he was a veteran, Ronald was entitled to be buried at the Veterans
Cemetery; after leaving Edna, he decided he wanted to be buried there, and
528 Kimberlyn Tr. 578:3–580:12; Donna Tr. 780:21–785:16; JX 26. 529 Kimberlyn Tr. 436–38. 530 Kimberlyn Tr. 436–38. 531 Kimberlyn Tr. 587:9–12. 532 Kimberlyn Tr. 587:9–12 (“He said he didn’t want her to be buried over top of him. He didn’t want her to be nowhere near him.”). 533 Kimberlyn Tr. 587:14–16. 534 JX 14. 535 JX 23. 536 JX 13; JX 57.
69 discussed his desires with Lawrence and Vincent, among others.537 Donna and
Kimberlyn assisted him with researching and completing the burial application.538
On the day Ronald applied for burial at the Veterans Cemetery, Patricia asked him
why he no longer wanted to be buried at Gracelawn.539 Ronald responded that he
“did not want that fat B laying on top of him” and that he wanted to be buried at
the Veterans Cemetery.540 He did not want Edna at his funeral and “didn’t want
her to be involved or see anything.”541 Donna and Kimberlyn were aware that,
even if Ronald chose to be buried in the Veterans Cemetery to escape Edna, Edna
could choose to be buried at the Veterans Cemetery upon her passing. 542 On
August 10, 2017, Ronald received notice that his application to be buried at the
Veterans Cemetery had been accepted.543
537 Kimberlyn Tr. 587:19–23, 588:1–5; see also Lawrence Tr. 872:2–8; Vincent Tr. 938:12–15, 954:7–10, 955:8–14. 538 Kimberlyn Tr. 588. 539 Patricia Tr. 737:19–738:2, 738:3–13 (“He said, I went over to the VA to submit -- put an application in for my plot at the veteran’s cemetery. I said oh, I thought you had a plot. I thought you was going to are buried in Grace Lawn. He said that he did not want that fat B laying on top of him. Q. Those were his exact words? A. No. He did not want the fat b*tch laying on top of him. Q. So what was your understanding of where he wanted to be buried? A. He wanted to be buried at the VA cemetery.”). 540 Patricia Tr. 737:19–738:2, 738:3–13. 541 Donna Tr. 738:10–23. 542 Donna Tr. 622. 543 JX 14.
70 Ronald also prepared a handwritten Statement of Wishes document on
September 18.544 Before completing this document, Donna and Kimberlyn
discussed it with him and ensured that he knew what he was signing. 545 While
Kimberlyn’s handwriting appears on the Statement of Wishes, Ronald wrote the
statement himself.546 The Statement of Wishes evidences that Ronald did not want
Edna to have control of his body:
Funeral arrangements to be handled by my daughters Kimberlyn Ray and Donna Williams[.] Under no circumstances do [] I want my body to be claimed or handled by my wife Edna A. Williams[.] I do not want my wife Edna A. Williams to have any dealings with funeral arrangements or to attend my funeral services or burial.547
While the Statement of Wishes does not mention the Veterans Cemetery, it is
consistent with testimony supporting the finding that Ronald did not want Edna
involved in his burial and that he wished for Donna and Kimberlyn to have the
responsibility of handling his burial and remains.548
Finally, Christiana Care provided Ronald with a document titled “Five
Wishes” (the “Five Wishes Document”), which Ronald completed and signed.549
544 JX 23. 545 Kimberlyn Tr. 573–575. 546 JX 23; Kimberlyn Tr. 575–77. 547 JX 23. 548 Kimberlyn Tr. 493:2–7; Donna Tr. 768:16–769:8, 774:2–10. The Statement of Wishes is also consistent with the information appearing in JX 13. 549 Kimberlyn Tr. 616:8–13.
71 Two copies of the Five Wishes Document have been provided: Joint Exhibit 13
(“JX 13”) and Joint Exhibit 57 (“JX 57”). JX 13 was produced by Donna and
Kimberlyn, and JX 57 was produced by Ronald’s doctor together with Ronald’s
medical records.550
Ronald signed both JX 13 and JX 57, and both were signed by Vincent and
Chris as purported witnesses.551 Vincent testified that he did not watch Ronald
sign the document, and Ronald’s signature was already on the document when it
was presented to him.552 JX 13 and JX 57 bear different dates: JX 13 is dated
August 3, and JX 57 is dated August 13.553 Donna testified that Ronald signed
both documents on August 3 at Donna’s house.554 Vincent also testified that he
signed both documents that day.555
JX 13 contained the same contents as JX 57 when both were signed.556 Both
name Donna as primary health care agent, and Kimberlyn and Ashly as secondary
agents; provide that Ronald did not want to be an organ donor; and evidence
550 JX 13; JX 57. 551 JX 13; JX 57. 552 Vincent Tr. 940. 553 Compare JX 13, with JX 57. 554 Donna Tr. 714:1–715:13; Vincent Tr. 930:5–931:9, 933:15–934:4. 555 Vincent Tr. 936:2–937:14. 556 Kimberlyn Tr. 490–491.
72 Ronald’s choices as to life support treatment and comfort care in different
contexts.557
But JX 13 and JX 57 bear one major substantive difference: page 9 of JX 57
is blank, while pages 6 and 9 of JX 13 contain additional terms in Donna’s
handwriting.558 Page 9 of JX 13 states:
Funeral arrangements to be handled by my daughters, Kimberlyn Ray and Donna Williams. Under no circumstances do I want my body to be claimed by my wife Edna Williams nor do I want my body to be claimed by my wife Edna Williams nor do I want Edna Williams to attend my funeral services or to make any decisions on my behalf. She is to have no dealings with my arrangements.559
It also notes that Ronald wanted to be buried in the Veterans Cemetery. 560 JX 57
does not include this language.561 As of August 3, when both versions were
signed, both versions’ burial wishes section was blank because Ronald had yet to
be accepted to the Veterans Cemetery.562 Donna added this information to JX 13
557 JX 13; JX 57. 558 Compare JX 13 at Plaintiffs 000189, Plaintiffs 000192, with JX 57 at E.Williams000475, E.Williams000478. 559 JX 13 at Plaintiffs 0000192. 560 JX 13 at Plaintiffs 0000192. 561 Compare JX 13, with JX 57. 562 Donna Tr. 711:9–19, 712:5–713:18
73 after Ronald received approval to be buried in the Veterans Cemetery, but
testimony varied as to when that was.563
I find that Ronald signed both JX 13 and JX 57 on August 3. The August 13
date on JX 57 is inaccurate, and Vincent and Chris did not actually witness Ronald
signing it. And although the information appearing in JX 13 is consistent with
Ronald’s wishes,564 I find Donna added the information to the JX 13 sometime
between August 10 and October 8, after Ronald had been accepted to the Veterans
Cemetery and after Ronald had already signed JX 13.565 She added this
information to JX 13 consistent with Ronald’s intent.566 Further, while JX 57 was
produced from a reliable source, it is not properly dated or witnessed.
Accordingly, JX 13 and JX 57 have not been authenticated under Delaware
Rule of Evidence 901, and so they are not admissible.567 However, I also find that
JX 13 and JX 57 were completed by Donna, Kimberlyn, and Ronald, and signed by
563 Kimberlyn Tr. 482–487, 572:2–14; see JX 13 at Plaintiffs 000189, Plaintiffs 0000192. 564 Donna Tr. 719:21–721:22; Lawrence Tr. 872:2–8; Vincent Tr. 938:1–5, 942:5–9, 943:9–18, 954:7–10, 955:8–14; see also JX 23 (Statement of Wishes). 565 Kimberlyn Tr. 572:2–12; JX 13. 566 Kimberlyn Tr. 617. 567 D.R.E. 901. Donna and Kimberlyn have failed to “produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is,” even in the face of the low burden to do so. Inconsistent witness testimony, as well as the documents themselves, preclude the conclusion that these are legally valid and binding documents. See Hardy v. Hardy, 2014 WL 3736331, at *14 & n.114 (Del. Ch. July 29, 2014).
74 Vincent and Chris, with no intention of committing fraud or deception.568 All
believed that their actions effectuated Ronald’s wishes.569
Edna contends that Ronald never wanted to be buried at the Veterans
Cemetery.570 She points to his difficulty with the VA and to his acceptance of
being buried at Gracelawn while they were together. Ronald might have wanted to
be buried at Gracelawn as far as Edna knows, but Edna does not have personal
knowledge of Ronald’s wishes after he left her on July 30. Even if he originally
planned on being buried at Gracelawn, Ronald was capable of changing his mind,
and Edna would have had no way knowing if he did.571 I am unconvinced by
Ronnie and Tiffine’s testimony on this issue for the same reasons.
The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that after leaving Edna,
Ronald decided he wanted to be buried in the Veterans Cemetery and not in his
marital plot at Gracelawn. As explained, Ronald’s antipathy towards the VA was
more nuanced than Edna contends and diminished over time, and even Edna
568 See Kimberlyn Tr. 617 (“I didn’t alter any documents. What we did was we added in where he wanted to be burial -- where he wanted to be buried, and just other pertinent information. So that is not altering any documents. My father was well aware of us putting that information in because that document was in our care. So we wanted to make sure we had it documented where he wanted to be.”); see also Kimberlyn Tr. 495:2–6; Donna Tr. 716:17–719:12, 722:4–723:4, 918:6–16, 920:19–921:14. While Vincent and Chris did not properly witness the documents, they signed them nonetheless. 569 Kimberlyn Tr. 495:2–6; Donna Tr. 716:17–719:12, 722:4–723:4, 918:6–16, 920:19– 921:14. 570 Edna Tr. 123:4–5. 571 Edna Tr. 127:5–20.
75 understood Ronald wanted military honors at his funeral. Ronald’s break from
Edna was complete—geographically, emotionally, and financially—and his desire
to be buried elsewhere is consistent with that break. While the Five Wishes
Document (JX 13 and JX 57) suffers from authentication problems, the Veterans
Cemetery application, the Statement of Wishes, and testimony from those who
were with Ronald as he made his break from Edna support a finding that Ronald
wanted to be buried in the Veterans Cemetery without interference from Edna.572
I. Ronald’s Last Days
Ronald began palliative care and decided to enter hospice care in September
2017.573 Ronald’s physical condition worsened until his death in October 2017.574
During the first week of October 2017, Ronald took a turn for the worse. In
addition to his failing physical health, Ronald’s mental faculties began to
deteriorate.575 Ronald had the good fortune of being surrounded by most of his
572 Ronald’s medical records also support this conclusion: “The patient has . . . nam[ed] his daughters Donna and Kimberly as his surrogate decision makers. This is particularly important as the patient is separated, but not divorced, from his wife. He is adamant that his wife, Edna, is not to be involved in his medical care, his decision making, or his care after death.” JX 58 at E.Williams0000445. 573 See JX 58 at E.Williams000579; Donna Tr.798:4–6. 574 Donna Tr. 800:7–24. 575 Kimberlyn Tr. 408:23–409:1 (stating Ronald “was in his right state of mind all the way up until three days before he passed away”); Donna Tr. 629:17–19 (noting Ronald lost his ability to understand in the few days before her passed).
76 family, but Ronnie refused to see his father.576 Rather, Ronnie stated, “[h]e made
his bed. He can lay in it.”577
On October 8, Ronald passed away.578 When she learned the news, Edna
called the police to report a “suspicious death”579 and accused Donna and
Kimberlyn of murdering Ronald.580 The police did not investigate.581 At trial,
Edna and Ronnie still maintain the unsubstantiated belief that it is possible that
Donna and Kimberlyn kidnapped and murdered Ronald, despite all of the evidence
to the contrary, including Ronald’s death certificate.582
Ronald was transported to Evans Funeral Home. However, Ronald was
unable to be buried because of Edna’s interference with the burial plans.583 At that
time, Donna and Kimberlyn filed for a temporary restraining order, submitting
with it JX 13 and the Statement of Wishes. Chancellor Bouchard granted the
576 See Patricia Tr. 742; see also Ronnie Tr. 1003. 577 E.g., Donna Tr. 629:14. 578 Kimberlyn Tr. 584:15. 579 Edna Tr. 225:7–226:2 580 Kimberlyn Tr. 586:6–10 (“We, right before they were about to take my father’s body out, New Castle County Police showed up. Apparently they were called because Edna accused me and my sister of murdering my father, or my father died of a suspicious death.”). 581 Edna Tr. 226:10–12. 582 JX 32 (identifying cardiomyopathy as cause of death); Edna 225:7–227:14; Ronnie Tr. 1003; Patricia Tr. 742. Edna even entertained the possibility of bringing a wrongful death action against Donna and Kim. Edna Tr. 228:18–23. 583 See generally D.I. 100.
77 order, giving Donna and Kimberlyn the authority to dispose of Ronald’s remains
and bury him at the Veterans Cemetery as he wished, subject to exhumation if they
did not prevail on the merits.584
When the court issued its ruling, out of respect for their father’s wife, Donna
and Kimberlyn informed Edna that she could attend the funeral, even though doing
so deviated from Ronald’s wishes.585 Edna attended, but Ronnie did not.586 In
accordance with this Court’s order, Ronald was buried in the Veterans
Cemetery.587 And as Ronald wished, his service to in the United States Army was
properly memorialized with two honor guards, the playing of taps, and the
presentation of a flag to Donna and Kimberlyn.588
II. ANALYSIS
I now turn to the parties’ affirmative claims and defenses. Donna and
Kimberlyn assert only one claim, seeking a declaratory judgment that they had
authority to dispose of Ronald’s remains and that he shall remain in the Veterans
584 D.I. 100 at 29:19–30:12. 585 See Kimberlyn 496–97, 589. Edna caused a scene at the funeral, rendering the day very difficult for Ronald’s family. Donna Tr. 803:16–23 (“A. She got up on the stand at the funeral, and read a letter. I can’t give you specifics. I can tell you it was a total character assassination to the whole entire church. Q. What do you mean by that? A. It was a letter to my father, but it was just some of the stuff she said was directed towards me and my sister. It was just bad things.”); see also JX 56 (Facebook posts). 586 Ronnie Tr. 1003 (“Why would I go to a funeral that I had nothing to do with?”). 587 Kimberlyn Tr. 589; Donna Tr. 651–52. 588 Donna Tr. 651–52.
78 Cemetery. In response, Edna raises the defense of unclean hands. And she
affirmatively brings four claims that I address below: undue influence, tortious
interference with inheritance, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.589
Edna’s claims and defenses are premised on the unsupported contention that
Donna and Kimberlyn used their position as Ronald’s caretakers to subjugate his
will and loot his assets in a scheme to spite Edna. But the preponderance of the
evidence tells a different story, and nothing suggests that Donna and Kimberlyn
capitalized on their father’s misfortune for their own gain. As a result, Edna’s
claims and defenses concurrently unravel. Donna and Kimberlyn prevail on all
claims, and the parties shall bear their respective costs and fees.
A. Edna Has Failed To Demonstrate Ronald Was Unduly Influenced.
Edna claims that Ronald was unduly influenced by Donna and Kimberlyn
and, as a result, executed several documents relating to his burial arrangements and
removing Edna as the primary beneficiary on his Death Benefit and MetLife
Policy.590 Edna challenges the Five Wishes Document, MetLife Policy beneficiary
designation dated September 13, 2017, and the Death Benefit beneficiary change
589 Edna’s Counterclaim Counts II, III, VII, and VIII do not assert causes of action; rather, they identify remedies. Edna also brought a counterclaim for tortious interference with economic interest, but she failed to address that claim in post-trial briefing. It is deemed waived. See Emerald P’rs v. Berlin, 726 A.2d 1215, 1225 (Del. 1999). 590 See D.I. 119 at 45–54.
79 dated August 2, 2017.591 Arguing that Ronald suffered from weakened intellect,
Edna further contends that Donna and Kimberlyn bear the burden of demonstrating
that he was not unduly influenced when executing these documents, and that they
have failed to carry that burden.592 Accordingly, Edna asks for the foregoing
documents to be rescinded or otherwise determined to be invalid.593 I conclude
Ronald was not of weakened intellect and that Edna has failed to carry her burden
that he was unduly influenced by his daughters when executing these documents.
Because the Five Wishes Document is inadmissible, my undue influence analysis
addresses only the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit.
“Undue influence occurs when a party exerts immoderate influence under
the circumstances that overcomes the transferor’s free will, resulting in a transfer
that is not of her own choice and mind.”594 For influence to be undue, it must rise
to the level as to “subjugate [the actor’s] mind to the will of another, to overcome
his free agency and independent volition, and to compel him to make a [document
591 See D.I. 119 at 34. Edna does not challenge the validity of the Statement of Wishes, contending that the PTO “identif[ed] only the August 3, 2017 and the September 13, 2017 documents as requiring validation.” Id. at 34 n.2. I address this procedural argument below. 592 See D.I. 119 at 53–54. 593 See D.I. 119 at 60. 594 Mitchell v. Reynolds, 2009 WL 132881, at *8 (Del. Ch. Jan. 6, 2009).
80 or transfer] that speaks the mind of another and not his own.”595 The defense
requires “an excessive or inordinate influence considering the circumstances of the
particular case.”596 “Unfair persuasion is the hallmark of undue influence.”597
The elements of undue influence are: (1) a susceptible testator; (2) the
opportunity to exert influence; (3) a disposition to do so for an improper purpose;
(4) the actual exertion of such influence; and (5) a result demonstrating its effect.598
Such a claim is “fact-intensive” and “often lacks direct evidence.”599 The party
claiming a document or transfer was the product of undue influence “must show
that the [transferor’s] mind was overcome by the influencer.”600 But this burden
shifts “under factual situations that lack implicit ethical safeguards.”601
1. Edna Bears The Burden Of Proving Undue Influence.
595 Sloan II, 2010 WL 2169496, at *7 (quoting In re Estate of West, 522 A.2d 1256, 1263 (Del. 1987)). 596 Mitchell, 2009 WL 132881, at *8 (quoting In re Will of McElhinney, 2007 WL 2896013, at *3 (Del. Ch. Oct. 1, 2007)). 597 Id. 598 Sloan II, 2010 WL 2169496, at *7. 599 IMO the LW & T of Hurley, 2014 WL 1088913, at *5 (Del. Ch. Mar. 20, 2014). 600 Will of Nicholson, 1998 WL 118203, at *3 (Del. Ch. Mar. 9, 1998); see Sloan v. Segal (Sloan I), 2009 WL 1204494, at *13 (Del. Ch. Apr. 24, 2009) (noting challenging party bears the burden of proving undue influence absent special circumstances), aff’d, 2010 WL 2169496 (Del. 2010) (TABLE). 601 Sloan I, 2009 WL 1204494 at *13 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Will of Melson, 711 A.2d 783, 787 (Del. 1998)).
81 In In re Last Will and Testament of Melson,602 our Supreme Court held that
the burden of proof shifts to the proponent of the transfer document where the
challenging party demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that: 1) the
document was executed by a testator who was “of weakened intellect”; 2) the
document was drafted by a person in a confidential relationship with the testator;
and 3) the drafter received a substantial benefit thereunder.603 If this showing is
made, the burden shifts to the proponent to prove the absence of undue influence
by a preponderance of the evidence.604 Edna has failed to demonstrate by clear and
convincing evidence that the burden of proof should be shifted to Donna and
Kimberlyn under Melson.
I first consider whether Donna and Kimberlyn were in a confidential
relationship with Ronald. “Even outside a formally recognized fiduciary
relationship, a relationship predicated on particular confidence or reliance may
give rise to fiduciary obligations. Eschewing a formalistic approach, Delaware
courts have declined to establish set bounds for such relationships, in favor of a
pragmatic, fact-driven inquiry.”605 In Sloan v. Segal, our Supreme Court stated
602 711 A.2d 783 (Del. 1998). 603 Sloan I, 2009 WL 1204494 at *13 (quoting In re Will of Melson, 711 A.2d at 788); accord Sloan II, 2010 WL 2169496, at *6; In re Estate of Hammond, 2012 WL 3877799, at *3 (Del. Ch. Aug. 30, 2012). 604 Sloan II, 2010 WL 2169496, at *6. 605 Mitchell, 2009 WL 132881, at *9.
82 “[a] confidential relationship exists where ‘circumstances make it certain the parties do not deal on equal terms but on one side there is an overmastering influence or on the other weakness, dependence or trust, justifiably reposed.’” This court has often found that a confidential relationship existed where, as here, an adult child was taking care of an aging or infirm parent. In those cases, the court took into consideration whether the testators’ relationships with their non- caretaker children were strained and whether the caretaking children were acting with power of attorney for their parents. These circumstances lend themselves to the creation of a confidential relationship because the parent must rely on a trusted child for physical, emotional, or decisional support.606
Clear and convincing evidence supports the conclusion that Donna and Kimberlyn
were in a confidential relationship with Ronald.
When he entered their care on July 30, 2017, he was dependent on them for
his physical support, shelter, access to medical care, and ability to handle his
financial affairs. Ronald could not complete basic tasks without assistance.
Reinforcing their existing fiduciary relationship, Ronald executed a power of
attorney in favor of Donna and Kimberlyn in September 2017. As of July 30,
Donna and Kimberlyn assumed a fiduciary obligation to Ronald, such that they
were in a confidential relationship when Ronald executed changes to the MetLife
606 Sloan I, 2009 WL 1204494, at *13 (footnotes omitted) (quoting In re Will of Wiltbank, 2005 WL 2810725, at *6 (Del. Ch. Oct. 18, 2005)); see also Mitchell, 2009 WL 132881, at *9 (“This Court has frequently looked to the transferor’s extensive or exclusive reliance on another for physical, emotional, or decisional support, a query informed by the transferor’s disposition and mental and physical capabilities, as well as the existence of any additional support network.”)).
83 Policy and Death Benefit. Assuming, but not deciding, that Donna and Kimberlyn
“drafted” the documents by helping Ronald complete them, Edna has satisfied the
second Melson factor by clear and convincing evidence.
As for the third Melson factor, Donna and Kimberlyn received a substantial
benefit from Ronald’s changes to the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit.607 As
beneficiaries, they are to receive a total of roughly $107,000. Whether or not they
planned to use those funds to pay Ronald’s funeral expenses does not bear on this
analysis. Before Ronald executed the beneficiary change forms, Donna and
Kimberlyn were to receive nothing from the policies. Now, they stand to receive it
all. That is a substantial benefit.608
I now turn to the first Melson factor and consider whether the MetLife
Policy and Death Benefit changes were executed when Ronald suffered from
weakened intellect.
607 See Sloan I, 2009 WL 1204494, at *14. 608 Id.
84 Although a precise standard for “weakened intellect” has not been articulated in our law, it has been recognized that the party challenging a [document] need not demonstrate an advanced degree of debilitation. Instead, “[t]he Court need only find that such ‘weakened intellect’ existed, taking into account factors such as a sudden change in the testator’s living habits and emotional disposition.” Importantly, the court need not find that someone lacked testamentary capacity to find that she was suffering from a weakened intellect.609
But this is a fact-intensive inquiry, and the Court considers all circumstances,
including whether the individual was suffering from a debilitating mental condition
and whether objective evidence indicates that the individual could comprehend,
understand, and make decisions himself.610
Edna admits that none of Ronald’s doctors indicated that he was incapable
of making his own decisions before July 31, 2017. Ronald executed a power of
attorney in Edna’s favor on July 24, which Edna believes to be valid. Despite
Ronald’s single hallucination episode in May 2017 and despite his long-time
depression and anxiety diagnoses, Edna believed Ronald was able to exercise his
own judgment shortly before he left her on July 30.611 I find the same. And the
evidence demonstrates that Ronald left Edna of his own volition on that day. 612
609 Sloan I, 2009 WL 1204494, at *13 (alteration in original) (footnotes omitted) (quoting and citing In re Will of Wiltbank, 2005 WL 2810725, at *6). 610 See id.; In re Estate of Hammond, 2012 WL 3877799, at *3. 611 See Sloan I, 2009 WL 1204494, at *11, *15. 612 See, e.g., Kimberlyn Tr. 524:17–19 (“I don’t want to be here with her no more. I am sick of her stuff. I want to go. I want out of here.”); Donna Tr. 686:22 (“He was tired of
85 After leaving Edna, Ronald continued to suffer from depression and anxiety,
and those conditions were likely exasperated by his “major change of living
situation,” which was a “major stressor.”613 When determining whether Ronald
suffered from weakened intellect, I consider Ronald’s change in living situation
and emotional disposition in view of the other facts of this case.614 Edna contends
that Ronald’s depression and anxiety, coupled with using medications that
potentially could impair his mental faculties, rendered him of weakened
intellect.615 On this, I disagree.
Ronald’s medical records indicate that Ronald’s depression and anxiety did
not render him incapable of making his own decisions and of overriding Donna
and Kimberlyn’s suggestions.616 They show that his doctors believed Ronald’s
mental health was good considering his circumstances. Ronald was “alert,
[Edna’s] sh*t. His words.”). Edna maintains that on July 30, Ronald was incapable of making decisions for himself, and that he was coerced into leaving. See, e.g., Edna Tr. 133:20–23. But the evidence demonstrates that Ronald chose to leave on his own volition. His 2017 decision to leave Edna is consistent with his 2012 decision to do the same, and Edna concedes that Ronald left of his own volition in 2012. See id. 112:11–13. I do not find Edna’s testimony credible, and her position is contrary to the weight of the evidence. 613 JX 58 at E.Williams000467. 614 See Sloan I, 2009 WL 1204494, at *13. 615 See D.I. 119 at 45–49. 616 See Sloan I, 2009 WL 1204494, at *13.
86 oriented, cooperative, and appropriately conversant,”617 he had “normal attention
span and concentration,”618 and his “mood and affect [we]re appropriate for the
circumstance.”619 Ronald could comprehend his treatment, understand
communications with his doctors, and make decisions for himself.620 The records
explicitly state that Ronald was “oriented” and was not “forgetful” or
“disoriented.”621 Ronald’s medical records support a finding by the preponderance
of the evidence that Ronald did not suffer from weakened intellect, despite his
depression and anxiety and despite taking a number of medications that could have
caused reduced mental capacity, but did not.622
And Ronald continued managing his own financial affairs with his
daughters’ assistance; he did not relinquish control. He paid bills, received mail,
and made phone calls. When communicating with financial institutions, Ronald
initiated the conversation, spoke with representatives, and permitted his daughters
to speak with them. Tellingly, although Ronald executed a power of attorney in
617 E.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000536, E.Williams000521; see also E.Williams000513 (“Mental status is alert.”), E.Williams000489 (same), E.Williams000721 (same), E.Williams000656 (“Psychiatric: Oriented and appropriate”). 618 E.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000462. 619 E.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000529. 620 See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000444–46, E.Williams000551, E.Williams000587; Donna Tr. 702. 621 JX 58 at E.Williams000542. 622 See Sloan II, 2010 WL 2169496, at *7.
87 their favor, Donna and Kimberlyn never used it. Donna and Kimberlyn dealt with
these matters with Ronald, rather than simply on his behalf.623
The fact that Donna and Kimberlyn occasionally helped Ronald complete
and understand documents does not render Ronald of weakened intellect. Ronald
made his own decisions and understood the implications of the documents he
executed. While his daughters sometimes explained those documents and other
financial information to Ronald, he had the mental wherewithal to choose for
himself and comprehend his actions. Ronald did not lose this ability until the first
week of October 2017, when both his physical and mental health rapidly
deteriorated.
Kimberlyn and Donna’s dealings with their father from July 30, 2017
onward do not present a “factual situation[] that lack[s] implicit ethical
safeguards.”624 While satisfying two Melson factors, Edna has failed to
demonstrate by clear and convincing Evidence that Ronald suffered from
“weakened intellect” on August 2 and September 13, when he executed the
documents she challenges. The burden remains with Edna to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that Ronald was unduly influenced by his daughters
when he named them as beneficiaries of the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit.
623 Compare Sloan I, 2009 WL 1204494, at *13. 624 Sloan I, 2009 WL 1204494, at *13 (quotation omitted).
88 2. Edna Has Failed To Carry Her Burden.
Edna must prove (1) Ronald was susceptible, (2) Donna and Kimberlyn had
the opportunity to exert influence, (3) Donna and Kimberlyn had a disposition to
do so for an improper purpose, (4) the actual exertion of such influence, and (5) a
result demonstrating its effect.625 Edna has failed to do so.
Enda has satisfied the first and second elements of the undue influence
claim. Ronald was a susceptible individual.
There is no precise definition or defining feature of susceptibility, but the analysis is informed by the subject’s capacity and does not require an advanced degree of debilitation. Evidence of a subject’s dependence on another, or a particular predisposition to accede to the demands of another person, may be sufficient to show susceptibility.626
The Court has previously determined an individual to be susceptible where he
suffered “diminished capacity to take care of basic daily tasks” and “needed to rely
on the help of family members and [the alleged influencer].”627 While a finding of
weakened intellect informs the inquiry, it is not necessary to render an individual
susceptible.628
625 Sloan II, 2010 WL 2169496, at *7. 626 In Matter of Estate of Dougherty, 2016 WL 4130812, at *10 (Del. Ch. July 22, 2016) (footnotes omitted); see also Mitchell, 2009 WL 132881, at *9. 627 In re Boyd, 2003 WL 21003272, at *6 (Del. Ch. Apr. 24, 2003). 628 Matter of Estate of West, 1985 WL 149632, at *4–5 (Del. Ch. June 20, 1985) (finding a testator did not lack testamentary capacity, but was susceptible due to her weakened
89 In this case, Ronald was dependent on Donna and Kimberlyn for his
physical care after July 30, 2017. Ronald suffered from serious physical problems,
and as a result, relied on Kimberly and Donna to assist him with basic tasks, as
well as with managing his finances. And because of his immobility, Ronald was
relatively confined to Donna’s home, where Donna and Kimberlyn had near-
constant access to him, being Ronald’s primary caretakers apart from his
physicians. They spent considerable time with Ronald from July 30, 2017 onward.
Ronald’s severely weakened condition and physical pain, coupled with his
immobile, relatively confined circumstances, made him susceptible to undue
influence.629 The opportunity prong is satisfied by the fact that Donna and
Kimberly helped Ronald complete the beneficiary changes at issue, as well as other
changes to his affairs.630 This is sufficient to establish that Ronald was susceptible
condition and the fact that she was living with another because she was unable to care for herself); see Matter of Kittila, 2015 WL 688868, at *15 (Del. Ch. Feb. 18, 2015) (MASTER’S REPORT) (concluding the testator did not have weakened intellect, and further concluding she was not susceptible because she was not socially isolated and was not dependent on others for her day-to-day life). 629 See Mitchell, 2009 WL 132881, at *10; Matter of Estate of Konopka, 1988 WL 62915, at *3, *4 (Del. Ch. June 17, 1988) (noting that “undisputed evidence that [the individual] was suffering from severe physical problems,” coupled with other factors, may be “amply sufficient to establish that [the individual] was susceptible to undue influence”). 630 See Sloan II, 2010 WL 2169496, at *7.
90 and that Donna and Kimberlyn had the requisite opportunity to exert undue
influence.631
The third element of undue influence, motive to do so for an “improper
purpose,” may be satisfied where the alleged influencer “stood to benefit
financially from such action”632 under circumstances in which the alleged
influencer’s “continued ability to support himself was dependent on” the
challenged transaction.633 Edna attacked Donna and Kimberlyn’s financial
situation,634 but while they carried debt, Donna and Kimberlyn’s families were
self-sufficient without the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit.635
Edna has also failed to demonstrate that Donna and Kimberlyn’s finances
motivated them to assist Ronald with changing the beneficiaries for the MetLife
Policy and Death Benefit. In the first instance, those funds were always intended
to pay for Ronald’s funeral expenses, which remain outstanding. As for excess
631 See Mitchell, 2009 WL 132881, at *10 (finding both elements satisfied where the testator was “was sick and required assistance in her daily living,” where she “relied on [the alleged influencer], who spent considerable time with her,” and where there was “some doubt as to [the testator’s] ability to manage her finances consistently”). 632 See Sloan II, 2010 WL 2169496, at *7. 633 Sloan I, 2009 WL 1204494, at *16. 634 See D.I. 119 at 50. 635 See, e.g., Kimberlyn Tr. 455:1–456:8, 458:8–12, 472:23–473:1; Donna Tr. 721:16–19, 806:22–24.
91 funds, the evidence demonstrates that Donna and Kimberlyn were indifferent to
that fact. As Kimberlyn testified,
I had nothing to benefit out of this. Do you actually think I wanted this? My father was just told on September 12 when we took him to see his cardiologist, with the hope of now that he’s in remission for his cancer, was released by Dr. Masters, now he can actually do something about his heart. We never had any idea that day we walked in there . . . He came in and sat down and he said, there’s nothing we can do for you. You are going to die. It threw me for a loop. You know what, out of all of that my dad still had the optimism when he walked out into that parking lot, because me and my sister had to hold ourselves together, couldn’t breakdown and cry in front of him. We had to hold ourselves together. He said, I guess I got to get my affairs in order. I never asked for this. We was put in the middle of this. But at the end of the day I did everything my father asked me to do because that’s my father. I would do the same thing for my mother. I didn’t ask for his money. I didn’t need it. I have my own money. So I didn’t do this to benefit out of anything. I did this for my dad because guess what? He didn’t have anybody else. Him and his wife wasn’t getting along. My brother abandoned him. My older sister didn’t see him. No one came to see my dad. The only one he had there was me and my sister. So I don’t want there to be under any misconceptions we were trying to benefit of this. I didn’t want to do this.636
Kimberlyn and Donna were not motivated by personal gain.637 While they “stood
to benefit financially”638 from Ronald’s decision to remove Edna from the MetLife
636 Kimberlyn Tr. 455:1–456:8. 637 There is some hypocrisy in Edna’s argument. Edna was motivated in substantial part by personal gain to bring this lawsuit, which seeks the MetLife Policy, the Death Benefit, and to disinter her husband’s body. Edna remains able to be buried with Ronald in the Veterans’ Cemetery.
92 Policy and Death Benefit, they did not require the policy funds for the “continued
ability to support [themselves].”639
Edna also sees an improper motive in what she calls Donna and Kimberlyn’s
“long-standing and implacable hostility towards Edna.”640 While it may be true
that Donna and Kimberlyn disliked Edna, the evidence demonstrates that they were
motivated by their care for their father. When they assisted him with the
beneficiary change forms, they did so with the knowledge that Ronald was dying
and that he wanted to unburden them of his funeral costs. Nothing in the record
demonstrates that they assisted Ronald with these forms to spite Edna. At trial,
Donna testified,
I didn’t ask for this by any means necessary. The picture that is being painted of me is -- it is ridiculous. I never asked my father to leave his wife. I never asked for my father to come live with me. I did what I thought I needed to do. The Bible says, “Honor thy father and honor thy mother.” That is what I did. I didn’t -- am I an expert on medical documentation, by no means. But I thought what I thought I needed to do. What am I going to do tell this man, get out. Sorry, you can’t live with me. Sorry you don’t want to go back to your wife. That’s not my problem. No, I wouldn’t do that. I had to take this in stride and figure it out. That is all I did was try to figure it out one day at a time.641
638 Sloan II, 2010 WL 2169496, at *7. 639 Sloan I, 2009 WL 1204494, at *16. 640 D.I. 119 at 50. 641 Donna Tr. 699:11–22.
93 Donna and Kimberlyn never looked at their father’s misfortune as an
opportunity for their own gain over Edna, notwithstanding their checkered family
history and the role that Edna played in it. And despite their distaste for Edna,
Donna and Kimberlyn allowed her to attend Ronald’s funeral, and have not
complained about Edna receiving the rest of Ronald’s estate. Their problems with
Edna did not materialize into the improper purpose necessary to support Edna’s
claim.
Even if Edna had demonstrated the third element of improper motive, this
Court is hesitant to “invalidate a document where doing so might frustrate the
testator’s intent.”642 Accordingly, our Supreme Court has made clear “that the
existence of the opportunity to exert undue influence and a motive to do so is not
enough to invalidate a will; rather there must also be actual exertion of improper
influence and a result demonstrating its effect.”643 In this case, Donna and
Kimberlyn became the beneficiaries of the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit, and
that is sufficient to satisfy the fifth element: a result demonstrating the effect of
undue influence.644 Thus, the pivotal issue is whether the evidence establishes that
642 Sloan I, 2009 WL 1204494, at *16. 643 Sloan II, 2010 WL 2169496, at *7. 644 See In re Boyd, 2003 WL 21003272, at *7 (Del. Ch. Apr. 24, 2003).
94 Donna and Kimberlyn actually exerted undue influence upon their father. It does
not.
Actual exertion cannot be satisfied where the action is consistent with the
individual’s intent.645 Ronald wanted nothing to do with Edna after he left her on
July 30. He removed Edna as an authorized user on his financial accounts and
redirected his income out of their joint bank account. He obtained a PFA against
her to keep her away from him. He named Donna and Kimberlyn, not Edna, as his
agents. As explained below, he changed his burial plans to separate himself from
Edna forever. Ronald removed Edna as the beneficiary of his MetLife and Death
Benefit to further implement his desire for a complete separation. As the
Statement of Wishes demonstrates, Ronald tasked Donna and Kimberlyn with
handling those arrangements, finances included; Ronald was adamant that Edna
have no involvement. Ronald made Donna and Kimberlyn the beneficiaries so
they could bear the financial burden of his burial. The documents Edna challenges
are consistent with Ronald’s intention, as proven by the evidence presented at trial,
to excise Edna from his remaining days and burial plans.
As a result, the changes to the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit do not
reflect actual exertion of undue influence. This is especially true “given the
emotionally charged way their relationship ended,” as well as the fact that Ronald
645 See Sloan II, 2010 WL 2169496, at *7.
95 did not want any contact with Edna after he left her in July 2017. 646 Rather, the
changes reflect Ronald’s genuine desire to ensure that he was completely separated
from Edna, and that Donna and Kimberlyn would receive the MetLife Policy and
Death Benefit funds to ease their financial burden after his death.
The beneficiary changes to the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit are valid.
Donna and Kimberlyn are entitled to a declaratory judgment to that effect.
B. Edna’s Tortious Interference And Unjust Enrichment Claims Also Fail.
Ronald wanted Donna and Kimberlyn to receive the benefit of the MetLife
Policy and Death Benefit in order to lessen their financial burden from his death.
Donna and Kimberlyn took actions related to those benefits at Ronald’s request
and to fulfill his wishes. More importantly, Ronald was adamant that Edna should
not receive the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit funds, consistent with the fact
that he forbade her involvement in his funeral. In view of these facts, Edna’s
claims for tortious interference with inheritance and unjust enrichment must fail.
Edna concedes that that this Court has been reluctant to recognize tortious
interference with inheritance as a cause of action.647 While other states recognize
this cause of action, this case does not present grounds to bring that tort to
646 Sloan I, 2009 WL 1204494, at *17. 647 See D.I. 119 at 56.
96 Delaware. As this Court stated in Mitchell v. Reynolds, “[t]o the extent [Edna’s]
challenge is based on tortious interference with inheritance, Delaware’s
recognition of that cause of action is open to question and the facts of this case are
outside the bounds of that tort as presented.”648 Donna and Kimberlyn did not
unduly influence or defraud Ronald into removing Edna as the beneficiary of the
MetLife Policy and Death Benefit. The choice was his and his alone. Donna and
Kimberlyn only assisted Ronald in doing what he wanted to do.649
For the same reasons, Edna cannot demonstrate that Donna and Kimberlyn
were unjustly enriched by Ronald’s changes to the MetLife Policy and Death
Benefit. To prevail on an unjust enrichment claim, Edna must demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence (1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a
relation between the enrichment and impoverishment, (4) the absence of
justification, and (5) the absence of a remedy provided by law. 650 Our law
recognizes that if a transfer is the result of undue influence, justification is absent
and a remedy—often a constructive trust—is available.651 But as discussed at
648 Mitchell, 2009 WL 132881, at *13. 649 Id. at *13 n.111 (noting the elements of Pennsylvania’s tortious interference with inheritance claim include that the defendant used fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence to prevent execution of the intended bequest and noting that the Third Circuit recognizes “the tort is not recognized in all states, specifically citing Delaware”). 650 Nemec v. Shrader, 991 A.2d 1120, 1130 (Del. 2010). 651 See Jankouskas v. Adams, 1981 WL 15142, at *3 (Del. Ch. May 18, 1981). Indeed, Edna seeks such a remedy in this case. See D.I. 119 at 58–59.
97 length, Ronald’s actions were not the result of his daughters’ undue influence and
were consistent with his own intentions. Accordingly, Edna’s claim fails.
C. Ronald Shall Remain Buried At The Veterans Cemetery.
The parties seek competing declaratory judgments regarding Ronald’s last
funeral and burial rights.652 Edna maintains that Ronald’s remains were interred
with a funeral home contrary to his wishes, subjected to a funeral not of his
choosing that was arranged and conducted by individuals not of his choosing, and
buried contrary to his wishes. But the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates
that Ronald wanted to be buried in the Veterans Cemetery and that he wanted
Kimberlyn and Donna to organize his burial and dispose of his remains.
Kimberlyn and Donna are entitled to relief.
As a proud veteran, Ronald always intended to memorialize his military
service at his funeral. While he initially intended to be buried with Edna at
Gracelawn, his intentions changed as his relationship with Edna soured to the point
of no return. Ronald wanted to separate himself from his estranged wife in life and
death. Accordingly, Ronald told his daughters and others that he no longer wanted
652 Edna seeks a declaration that she is authorized to oversee Ronald’s last funeral and burial rights, including but not limited to the disinterment of his remains and reburial at Gracelawn. In their only affirmative claim, Kimberlyn and Donna seek a declaration that they had authority to dispose of Ronald’s remains and that Ronald shall remain buried in the Veterans Cemetery. In addition, both parties seek a declaratory judgment regarding the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit beneficiary changes. Those concerns were addressed above in my undue influence assessment: the beneficiary changes are valid.
98 to be buried with Edna and that he wanted to be laid to rest in the Veterans
Cemetery. Ronald stated that he “did not want that fat B laying on top of him” 653
and that “[h]e didn’t want her to be involved or see anything.” 654 Acting on this
choice, Ronald completed an application to obtain what he was entitled to: a
peaceful resting place among his fellow veterans in honor of his service to our
country.655
Ronald also completed a Statement of Wishes in his own hand. The
Statement of Wishes is clear. It mandates that Ronald’s “[f]uneral arrangements
[are] to be handled by my daughters Kimberlyn Ray and Donna Williams” and
further mandates that Edna shall not be involved in Ronald’s funeral arrangements
under any circumstances.656 The Statement of Wishes is an undisputedly valid and
authenticated expression of Ronald’s intent for Donna and Kimberlyn, not Edna, to
handle his burial and funeral. As explained, Ronald created the Statement of
Wishes with full capacity and without the exercise of undue influence. It
contributes mightily to the preponderance of evidence proving Ronald wanted
Donna and Kimberlyn to handle his funeral and burial.
653 Patricia Tr. 738:5–6. 654 Patricia Tr. 738:22–23. 655 See JX 14. 656 JX 23.
99 Donna and Kimberlyn arranged Ronald’s funeral and his burial in the
Veterans Cemetery. While the Statement of Wishes is silent as to where Ronald
wanted to be buried, it gave Donna and Kimberlyn the authority to bury Ronald in
the Veterans Cemetery as he intended. Donna and Kimberlyn honored their
father’s wishes and disposed of his remains as he desired.
Edna tries to dislodge this evidence, and particularly the Statement of
Wishes, through unfounded procedural technicalities. She contends that
Kimberlyn and Donna built their entire case on the Five Wishes Document,
specifically JX 13; that they failed to raise the Statement of Wishes’ sufficiency as
a declaration under 12 Del. C. § 262 as an issue of law to be litigated;657 that by
these tactical choices, no evidence other than the Five Wishes Document, including
the Statement of Wishes, can support their claim; and that the Five Wishes
Document cannot serve as a Section 262 declaration because it is inauthentic,
657 Section 262 is titled “Declaration of Disposition of Last Remains” and provides: The declarant may specify, in a declaration instrument, any 1 or more of the following: (1) The disposition to be made of the declarant’s last remains; (2) Who may direct the disposition of the declarant’s last remains; (3) The ceremonial arrangements to be performed after the declarant’s death; (4) Who may direct the ceremonial arrangement after the declarant’s death; or (5) The rights, limitations, immunities, and other terms of third parties dealing with the declaration instrument.
100 leaving Kimberlyn and Donna without any evidence that Ronald wanted to be
buried in the Veterans Cemetery.658
As explained above, both iterations of the Five Wishes Document, presented
at JX 13 and JX 57, are inadmissible. I do not consider the Five Wishes
Documents when determining Ronald’s final wishes and intentions. Accordingly,
I need not determine whether JX 13 or JX 57 meet Section 262’s requirements for
a declaration instrument.
Contrary to Edna’s contention, Donna and Kimberlyn rely on much more
than JX 13 to prove Ronald’s intent. In particular, Donna and Kimberlyn have
relied on the Statement of Wishes since this action’s inception. They submitted
both JX 13 and the Statement of Wishes to this Court when they filed their Petition
and moved for the October 2017 TRO.659 The Petition primarily relies on the
Statement of Wishes.660 Chancellor Bouchard considered both JX 13 and the
Statement of Wishes when granting the October 2017 TRO,661 and he was
especially persuaded by the Statement of Wishes.662
658 See D.I. 119 at 54–55; D.I. 125 at 14–15 (citing PTO at 6). 659 See Pet. ¶¶ 7, 11, 18; D.I. 100 at 6:13–20. 660 Compare Pet. ¶¶ 11, 18, with id. ¶ 7. 661 See D.I. 100 at 6:13–20, 20:22–19, 33:22–34:16. 662 See D.I. 100 at 33:22–34:16 (“The second document is dated September 18th, 2017. That document is called a statement of wishes. In this document, Mr. Williams personally wrote in longhand that his funeral arrangements were to be handled by his
101 Edna seeks shelter in the fact that Donna and Kimberlyn did not include the
Statement of Wishes’ status as a Section 262 declaration as an issue of law to be
litigated in the Pre-Trial Order.663 Unlike the Five Wishes Document, the
Statement of Wishes’ authenticity is not disputed. And Edna has advanced no
meaningful argument that the Statement of Wishes is not a declaration instrument
under Section 262.664
The Statement of Wishes was produced in discovery, and Edna had the
opportunity to ask questions about it at deposition.665 It appeared on the Amended
Joint Exhibit List without objection, was offered by Donna and Kimberlyn at trial,
and was admitted into evidence.666 Edna had the opportunity to ask questions of
those who testified about it.667 There was no motion in limine and no objection at
daughters, Kimberlyn Ray and Donna Williams. That’s the document, Mr. Powell, I handed to you earlier. Mr. Williams also wrote that he did not want his wife to be involved in his funeral arrangements. By the way, I have taken a look at that document. I have dealt with a few competency cases in my life, and from the face of it, it did not look like an incompetent person completed that document. The expression of the wishes was very clear. I’m not saying there couldn’t be authentication issues, or something like that, associated with that document, but there wasn’t an obvious indication that this was completed by somebody who didn’t know what he wanted.”). 663 See D.I. 125 at 15. 664 See generally D.I. 119, 125. 665 See D.I. 132 at 28:4–11. 666 See D.I. 105; JX 23. 667 See D.I. 132 at 28:4–11.
102 trial regarding the Statement of Wishes.668 And when pressed on Edna’s position
at post-trial argument, her counsel could not identify case law supporting the
proposition that if evidence does not go directly to a specifically stated issue of law
to be litigated in the pretrial order, then the Court cannot rely on that evidence for
broader issues, even if the evidence was presented and elicited testimony at trial.669
I do not adopt Edna’s unsupported position.
As explained, the Statement of Wishes provides powerful and unrebutted
evidence that Ronald wanted Donna and Kimberlyn, and not Edna, to handle his
burial and funeral. Even without the trappings of Section 262, the Statement of
Wishes presents powerful evidence of Ronald’s intent. The fact that its status
under Section 262—which appears to be undisputed—was not raised in the Pre-
Trial Order does not diminish its evidentiary effect.
To resolve any doubt, I further find that the Statement of Wishes constitutes
a declaration instrument under 12 Del. C. § 262. That provision allows one to
execute a declaration instrument that directs the disposition of one’s last remains
and identifies who may direct disposition of the remains and handle ceremonial
arrangements. The Delaware Code defines “declaration instrument” as “a written
instrument, signed by a declarant, governing the disposition of the declarant’s last
668 See D.I. 132 at 29:13–18. 669 See D.I. 132 at 30:1–12.
103 remains and the ceremonies planned after a declarant’s death.”670 Ronald wrote the
Statement of Wishes by hand and signed it. Under the plain language of Section
262, the Statement of Wishes is a valid declaration instrument directing Donna and
Kimberlyn, to the exclusion of Edna, to direct the disposition of Ronald’s remains
and his ceremonial arrangements.
Donna and Kimberlyn are entitled to a declaratory judgment that Ronald’s
remains were disposed of consistent with his wishes and shall remain in the
Veterans Cemetery. Edna is not entitled to a declaratory judgment in
contravention of the Statement of Wishes’ express terms. Ronald’s body shall not
be disinterred, and he shall remain buried in the Veterans Cemetery.
D. The Unclean Hands Doctrine Does Not Bar Donna And Kimberlyn’s Request For A Declaratory Judgement.
Donna and Kimberlyn seek a declaration that Ronald’s body should not be
disinterred and that his changes to the Death Benefit and MetLife Policy
beneficiary designations are valid. Edna contends that their affirmative claim for
relief is barred by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands.671 I disagree and hold
that the doctrine of unclean hands does not foreclose a declaratory judgment in
Donna and Kimberlyn’s favor.
670 12 Del. C. § 260. 671 See D.I. 119 at 34–44.
104 “The affirmative defense of unclean hands embodies the basic and long
upheld principle followed by the Court of Chancery that ‘he who comes into equity
must come with clean hands.’”672 “The doctrine is aimed at providing courts of
equity with a shield from the potentially entangling misdeeds of the litigants in any
given case.”673 The Court has “extraordinarily broad discretion in application of
the doctrine [of unclean hands].”674 But “the improper conduct must relate directly
to the underlying litigation.”675 And the “inequitable conduct must have an
immediate and necessary relation to the claims under which relief is sought,’”676
and the litigant must engage in “reprehensible conduct in relation to the matter in
controversy.”677 Where the alleged inequitable conduct is “far beyond the scope of
the Complaint in this action” or is “irrelevant to the question of” law before the
672 In re Barker Tr. Agreement, 2007 WL 1800645, at *11 (Del. Ch. June 13, 2007) (quoting Bodley v. Jones, 59 A.2d 463, 469 (Del. Ch. 1947)). 673 Sloan II, 2010 WL 2169496, at *6. 674 Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Nakahara v. NS 1991 American Tr., 718 A.2d 518, 522 (Del. Ch. 1998)); see also Matter of Lomax, 2019 WL 4955315, at *2–3 (Del. Ch. Oct. 8, 2019). 675 Sloan II, 2010 WL 2169496, at *6 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Nakahara, 718 A.2d at 522). 676 Id. (quoting Nakahara, 718 A.2d at 522). 677 Matter of Lomax, 2019 WL 4955315, at *2–3 (quoting In re Rural/Metro Corp. Stockholders Litig., 102 A.3d 205, 237–38 (Del. Ch. 2014)); accord In re Barker Tr. Agreement, 2007 WL 1800645, at *11.
105 Court, unclean hands will not apply.678 The party asserting the unclean hands bears
the burden of pleading and proving the affirmative defense.679
For the Court to apply the unclean hands doctrine in this case, Edna must
prove that Donna and Kimberlyn’s purported inequitable conduct relates directly to
this litigation and has an “immediate and necessary” relationship to the claims
under which relief is sought.680 Edna contends that Donna and Kimberlyn are
barred by unclean hands for three reasons: 1) “their exercise of undue influence,”
2) “their breaches of fiduciary duties,” and 3) “their actions, fraudulent at worst,
unconscionable at best,” relating to the Five Wishes Document, presented in the
October 2017 TRO as JX 13.681 These grounds are insufficient to justify invoking
unclean hands to bar Donna and Kimberlyn’s claim. I address each in turn.
First, the Court’s determination that a party exerted undue influence may be
sufficient to support application of the unclean hands doctrine. 682 But as discussed
above, Edna has failed to prove that Donna and Kimberlyn unduly influenced
Ronald. Undue influence cannot be the basis of Edna’s unclean hands defense.
678 Sloan II, 2010 WL 2169496, at *6. 679 See Matter of Lomax, 2019 WL 4955315, at *2–3. 680 Sloan II, 2010 WL 2169496, at *6. 681 D.I. 119 at 35. 682 In re Will of Stotlar, 1987 WL 31646, at *1 (Del. Ch. Dec. 29, 1987), aff’d sub nom. Stotlar v. Cook, 542 A.2d 358 (Del. 1988).
106 Second, Edna cannot use Donna and Kimberlyn’s purported breach of
fiduciary duty as the basis for her defense. Absent some special circumstance, this
Court has recognized that unclean hands may foreclose the claimant’s relief where
she has breached her fiduciary duties.683 As discussed with respect to Edna’s
undue influence claim, Donna and Kimberlyn were in a confidential relationship
with Ronald that gave rise to fiduciary obligations: “a situation where one person
reposes special trust in another or where a special duty exists on the part of one
person to protect the interests of another.”684 But they have not engaged in the type
of self-dealing that would trigger unclean hands. They did not initiate the MetLife
Policy and Death Benefit changes; rather, Ronald decided to make those changes
and requested his daughters’ assistance in completing the task. Further, Donna and
Kimberlyn acted in Ronald’s best interest when assisting with the beneficiary
changes and other paperwork, including the Five Wishes Document. No evidence
supports a finding to the contrary.
Finally, I reject Edna’s contention that Donna and Kimberlyn have unclean
hands because they allegedly misled this Court by submitting the Five Wishes
Document as JX 13, but not JX 57, with their Petition and motion for the October
683 Craig v. Graphic Arts Studio, Inc., 166 A.2d 444, 447 (Del. Ch. 1960). 684 Mitchell, 2009 WL 132881 at *9 (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. AIG Life Ins. Co., 901 A.2d 106, 113 (Del. 2006)).
107 2017 TRO.685 In support, Edna makes the unsubstantiated claim that Ronald had
no part in completing JX 13; argues that the document was improperly witnessed;
and contends that Donna and Kimberlyn purposefully concealed JX 57 from the
Court in October 2017 and throughout discovery. I am unconvinced that these
grounds justify exercising my discretion to apply the unclean hands doctrine.
Donna and Kimberlyn’s allegedly inequitable conduct with respect to the
Five Wishes Document “must have an immediate and necessary relation to the
claims under which relief is sought.”686 JX 13 and JX 57 are inadmissible and are,
therefore, unnecessary to deciding the claims presented in this action. Likewise,
JX 13 was not the sole document that Chancellor Bouchard considered when
issuing the October 2017 TRO. To the contrary, he was greatly persuaded by the
Statement of Wishes, drafted by Ronald’s own hand, which is consistent with
Ronald’s intentions as supported by the preponderance of the evidence presented at
trial. Through that document, Ronald gave Donna and Kimberly the authority to
dispose of his remains. And although it does not specifically provide that Ronald
wanted to be buried at the Veterans Cemetery, Donna and Kimberlyn buried him
685 See D.I. 119 at 35–37. Edna also contends that Donna and Kimberlyn engaged in inequitable conduct with respect to the MetLife Policy beneficiary change form, primarily contending that Ronald was entirely removed from the process and that his daughters commandeered his will. See id. at 37–39. For the reasons already discussed at length in this Opinion, Edna’s argument is unpersuasive: Ronald removed her as the beneficiary of the MetLife Policy and was not influenced by his daughters in doing so. 686 Sloan II, 2010 WL 2169496, at *6 (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).
108 there in accordance with his wishes. At bottom, the Five Wishes Document did
not affect the validity of Ronald’s choices after July 30, 2017. The Five Wishes
Document, presented at JX 13 and JX 57, was not necessary to Donna and
Kimberlyn’s affirmative claim and therefore cannot support Edna’s unclean hands
defense.687
Donna and Kimberlyn deny that they misled the Court when submitting JX
13 but not JX 57 in pursuit of the October 2017 TRO.688 There is no evidence that
they actively concealed JX 57 from the Court, or intended to do so. I have found
that Donna and Kimberlyn harnessed no nefarious intent when submitting JX 13 in
this matter.689
687 See Matter of Lomax, 2019 WL 4955315, at *3 (“I find no direct relation, however, between David’s misconduct and the matter in controversy here. David’s misconduct does not affect the validity of the 2013 Will, the Decedent’s capacity to execute that Will, or whether it was a product of Robert’s undue influence. Robert, not David, took the Decedent to have the 2013 Will prepared. I disagree with Robert's argument that this litigation is directly related to David’s misconduct because it involves the Decedent’s assets – whether while he was living or after his death. Such claims are beyond the scope of this action and I decline to apply the doctrine of unclean hands, as a matter of law, or to recommend that the Court grant summary judgment on this issue.”). 688 Donna and Kimberlyn contend that Ronald signed both JX 13 and JX 57 on August 3; that Ronald kept JX 13 in his possession and distributed JX 57 to his doctors; and that accordingly, the language about his burial was added only to JX 13 after his application to be buried at the Veterans Cemetery was accepted. JX 57 was produced by Dr. Masters along with Ronald’s medical records. Donna and Kimberlyn contend that JX 57 was not in their possession at the time of the October 2017 TRO. See D.I. 123 at 31–32. As explained, both JX 13 and JX 57 suffer from inauthenticity problems, and so I do not make any findings of fact as to their origins. 689 See, e.g., Kimberlyn Tr. 617:2–9. At post-trial argument, Edna’s counsel conceded that the sophistication of the parties was relevant to submitting JX 13 when seeking the
109 Even assuming Donna and Kimberlyn intentionally withheld JX 57 while
submitting JX 13 in October 2017, the circumstances of this case do not require me
to invoke unclean hands. In Sloan v. Segal, this Court has declined to invoke
unclean hands, even where a litigant misled this Court and another during estate
proceedings, where the testator was not forced to act against her will and where
applying unclean hands would thwart the testator’s intent.690 Rather, then-Vice
Chancellor Strine took the deceit into account in assessing the litigant’s
credibility.691 Here, Donna and Kimberlyn’s explanations about the Five Wishes
Document’s execution, witnessing, date, possession, and when additional contents
were added to JX 13 were inconsistent with the documents themselves and were
impeached by Kimberlyn’s deposition. At bottom, Donna and Kimberlyn lacked
credibility with respect to the Five Wishes Document. I have accordingly
discounted their testimony about that document in my factual findings, resulting in
a determination that both JX 13 and JX 57 are inadmissible.692
JX 57 was ultimately produced in discovery by Dr. Masters, and Edna had
ample opportunity to use JX 57 in this litigation. Indeed, she effectively teased out
October 2017 TRO. See D.I. 132 at 64:7–10 (“They were unsophisticated. They did the best they could. That may explain October 10, 2017. That’s the date the petition was filed.”). 690 See Sloan I, 2009 WL 1204494, at *17–18. 691 Id. 692 Id. at *18.
110 the problems with JX 57 together with JX 13, leading to JX 13’s exclusion as
inadmissible. Where no harm resulted from JX 13 or JX 57, and absent clear
evidence that Donna and Kimberlyn misled the Court in October 2017, I decline to
exercise my discretion to apply unclean hands. Consequently, I do not agree that
Donna and Kimberlyn’s conduct is “so repugnant that the court must automatically
deny” them a declaratory judgment in their favor.693
At bottom, “[t]his court has broad leeway in exercising its equitable
judgment under this maxim, and is not bound by formula or restrained by any
limitation that tends to trammel the free and just exercise of discretion.”694 In my
view, applying the doctrine of unclean hands by his daughters to frustrate Ronald’s
intentions would be supremely inequitable.695 Throughout this narrative, Ronald’s
daughters fiercely adhered to his wishes. They have come to this Court with the
intent of allowing their father to rest in peace. The doors of this Court will not be
shut against them in their efforts to effectuate Ronald’s wishes; any other result
would be inequitable.
693 Id. 694 In re Barker Tr. Agreement, 2007 WL 1800645, at *11 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Nakahara, 718 A.2d at 522). 695 See Sloan I, 2009 WL 1204494, at *18.
111 E. The Parties Shall Bear Their Own Costs And Fees.
Both parties contend they are entitled to costs and fees in bringing this
action. Delaware courts generally follow the American Rule, which holds litigants
responsible for their own costs and fees.696 “Under the American Rule and
Delaware law, litigants are normally responsible for paying their own litigation
costs.”697 The Court recognizes an exception to this rule where a party has acted in
bad faith.698 “Delaware courts have previously awarded attorneys’ fees where (for
example) parties have unnecessarily prolonged or delayed litigation, falsified
records or knowingly asserted frivolous claims.”699 “Ultimately, the bad faith
exception is applied in extraordinary circumstances primarily to deter abusive
litigation and protect the integrity of the judicial process.”700 A lesser breach of
fiduciary duty alone will not merit departing from the American Rule.701
Here, neither party’s conduct rises to the level of bad faith requisite to justify
fee-shifting. Donna and Kimberlyn brought their claims in good faith, and there is
696 See, e.g., Mahani v. Edix Media Gp., Inc., 935 A.2d 242, 245 (Del. 2007). 697 Id. 698 Marra v. Brandywine Sch. Dist., 2012 WL 4847083, at *4 (Del. Ch. Sept. 28, 2012); see also Estate of Carpenter v. Dinneen, 2008 WL 859309, at *17 (Del. Ch. Mar. 6, 2008). 699 Montgomery Cellular Hldg. Co. v. Dobler, 880 A.2d 206, 227 (Del. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Johnston v. Arbitrium (Cayman Is.) Handels AG, 720 A.2d 542, 546 (Del. 1998)). 700 Nichols v. Chrysler Gp., LLC, 2010 WL 5549048, at *3 (Del. Ch. Dec. 29, 2010). 701 See HMG/Courtland Props., Inc. v. Gray, 749 A.2d 94, 124–25 (Del. Ch. 1999).
112 no evidence that they unduly influenced Ronald, engaged in fraud, or breached
their fiduciary duties. And although Edna has not prevailed in this action, Donna
and Kimberlyn have not offered evidence that Edna “unnecessarily prolonged or
delayed litigation, falsified records or knowingly asserted frivolous claims.”702
The parties must bear their respective costs and fees in accordance with the
American rule.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs on all
counts. Ronald shall remain buried peacefully in the Veterans Cemetery, his final
resting place, and the MetLife Policy proceeds shall be distributed to Plaintiffs.
The parties shall submit a stipulated implementing order within twenty days.
702 Montgomery Cellular, 880 A.2d at 227 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Johnston v. Arbitrium (Cayman Is.) Handels AG, 720 A.2d 542, 546 (Del. 1998)). Under the circumstances of this case, my conclusion holds true even despite my finding that Edna forged Ronald’s signature on JX 53.
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Kimberlyn Ray v. Edna A. Williams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimberlyn-ray-v-edna-a-williams-delch-2020.