What Happened
Keystone’s client, the grand-niece of the decedent, came to Keystone after discovering that her great uncle’s home was titled in the name of his former caregiver following his death. Treating the home as her own, the caregiver remodeled the residence and constructed an ADU on the property.
Keystone filed suit for elder abuse against the caregiver on behalf of its client, who acted as representative of the decedent’s estate. After engaging in discovery and taking the caregiver’s deposition, Keystone uncovered that the caregiver drafted the deed which granted her title to the home while the decedent was living in a care facility after being hospitalized, calling into question the decedent’s understanding of his actions and the caregiver’s influence over them. Critically, the caregiver admitted in her deposition that the decedent never intended to give up present ownership of the home when he executed the deed. By her own account, the transfer was made solely to allow her to obtain a loan against the property so the decedent could access funds for his expenses, with the decedent retaining the right to the property’s income during his lifetime and the caregiver inheriting it only upon his death. These admissions established that the deed was invalid as a matter of law because it was never delivered with the intent to convey a present ownership interest.
Keystone put pressure on the caregiver by filing a motion for summary adjudication, which led to a favorable settlement in which the caregiver agreed to make a substantial payment to the decedent’s estate. The payment amount was to be determined based on the value of the decedent’s home, or as a percentage of the sale proceeds if the caregiver could not afford the payment and the property had to be sold, minus any contributions made by the caregiver that increased the value of the home, such as the improvements she made during construction.
The settlement terms included a mechanism through which the caregiver could demonstrate her contributions to improving and maintaining the home while Keystone’s client could determine which contributions were proper. If the parties could not agree, the settlement provided that the dispute would be arbitrated by a retired judge to determine the value of the interest Keystone’s client would receive on behalf of the decedent’s estate. Following extensive back and forth negotiation, the parties could not reach agreement on which reimbursements were valid. The dispute went to arbitration, leaving it in the hands of the retired judge to conclusively determine the settlement amount.
How Keystone Was Able to Help
At arbitration, the caregiver sought to inflate her reimbursement claim by stretching the settlement terms in her favor and submitting duplicative expenses for work on the home. Keystone undermined her credibility on cross-examination, exposed the duplicative charges, and held the arbitrator to the plain language of the settlement. The arbitrator rejected the caregiver’s interpretation, confirmed the full payment owed to Keystone’s client, and awarded attorney’s fees on top.
Following the arbitration, the caregiver paid the full settlement amount and attorney’s fees to the estate, and Keystone assisted its client in closing out the estate and distributing the proceeds to the decedent’s rightful heirs. This matter illustrates why the work of litigation does not end when the parties sign a settlement agreement. Keystone’s foresight in negotiating clear enforcement mechanisms — and its willingness to litigate them when the caregiver tried to walk back her obligations — turned a paper settlement into a full recovery for the decedent’s heirs.
Have any questions?
The experienced probate attorneys at Keystone can help. Contact our firm today to learn how we can assist.
