Our firm represented the granddaughters of Charles Carrithers, who passed away in 2010 as a resident of Virginia. At the time, Mr. Carrithers had a significant estate for which he created a last will and testament and a revocable living trust. These estate planning documents provided for the equal descent and distribution of his assets to each of his three children and five grandchildren. The terms of the trust provided that three sons would receive income only during their lives, but the five grandchildren would receive an immediate distribution of their share. The attorney who initially prepared the will and trust became the subject of an investigation by the FBI for elder abuse. The lawyer was ultimately convicted and sent to prison. During this investigation, the FBI confiscated over 50 file boxes, including Mr. Carrithers’ original will. The sons of Mr. Carrithers claimed they could not locate the original will and refused to file a copy of the will with the court. Instead, the sons asked the court to [...]
By 2003, Charles Carrithers had amassed an estate worth approximately forty-five million ($45,000,000.00) dollars. Mr. Carrithers retained a Virginia attorney to prepare his last will and testament and a revocable living trust. At that time, he was survived by three sons and five grandchildren. Our firm was hired to represent two of the five grandchildren as beneficiaries of the trust. The will left all estate assets to the beneficiaries of the revocable living trust.
Intentional Interference with an Expected Inheritance; Plaintiff was major beneficiary of decedent's Will & Trust. Prior to decedent's death from terminal lung cancer, decedent's ex-wife re-entered his life and as a result of her undue influence and duress was able to procure an amendment to the Trust whereby the plaintiff's inheritance was greatly devalued. IN RE THE ESTATE OF JOHN DOE; JANE DOE v. MRS. JOHN DOE
Intentional Interference with an Expected Inheritance; Plaintiffs were grandchildren of decedent; Prior to decedent's death she was in the care of a daughter and named beneficiary. Her daughter used undue influence and through duress forced the decedent to alter her will naming the daughter the sole beneficiary. IN THE ESTATE OF JANE DOE; JANE DOE'S GRANDCHILDREN v. JANE DOE'S DAUGHTER.