What’s going on, should I be worried, and what can I do about it? These are questions you may find yourself asking as your loved one becomes less independent and more reliant on others.
Families sometimes discover that a loved one’s assets have been transferred, retitled, or redirected under troubling circumstances. These discoveries often come after a sudden change in behavior, a decline in health, or the involvement of a new caregiver, companion, or advisor. When this happens, families naturally ask whether anything can be done to address what occurred.
Situations like these often involve concerns about undue influence, incapacity, or fraud. While these concepts are related, they are legally distinct, and whether assets can be recovered depends heavily on the specific facts involved.
Undue influence occurs when pressure or manipulation overcomes a person’s free will, causing them to act in a way that does not reflect their true intentions. This is different from ordinary persuasion or family disagreement. Incapacity focuses on whether a person had the mental ability to understand the nature and consequences of a transaction at the time it occurred. Fraud involves intentional deception, where someone is misled into transferring assets based on false information.
Concerns about undue influence, incapacity, or fraud often arise when there are unexpected or last-minute changes to estate planning documents, beneficiary designations, or ownership of assets. Families may question why long-standing plans were altered, why trusted individuals were removed, or why assets were transferred in ways that do not align with prior wishes. These situations are frequently complicated by illness, cognitive decline, or increasing dependence on others.
In Massachusetts, courts evaluate concerns about undue influence by looking at the surrounding circumstances rather than any single factor¹. The analysis is highly fact-specific. Courts may consider the individual’s vulnerability at the time decisions were made, whether another person had the opportunity to exert influence, whether that person benefited from the transaction, and whether the changes represent a significant departure from prior plans or expressed intentions. The presence or absence of independent legal advice can also be an important consideration.
When assets have been transferred under questionable circumstances, “getting assets back” does not always mean a simple reversal. In some cases, it may involve challenging certain transactions, beneficiary designations, or estate planning documents. In others, it may mean seeking court review of actions taken while a person lacked capacity or was subject to improper influence. The availability of remedies depends on many factors, including timing, documentation, and the parties involved.
These matters can be emotionally difficult and legally complex. Allegations of undue influence, incapacity, or fraud often lead to delays, increased legal costs, and strain among family members. Even when concerns are legitimate, resolving them requires careful evaluation and, in some cases, court involvement.
Early attention can make a meaningful difference. Families sometimes notice warning signs during a loved one’s lifetime, such as increasing isolation, secrecy, or sudden financial decisions that are out of character. None of us ever want to believe that our loved one will fall prey to improper conduct, but unfortunately it happens. Addressing these concerns sooner rather than later may help protect the individual and preserve available options. When concerns arise, working with an experienced attorney can help families understand whether legal remedies may be available and how best to proceed.
By India L. Minchoff, Esq.
¹ Massachusetts courts have recognized that undue influence is often proven through circumstantial evidence rather than direct proof. See Neill v. Brackett, 234 Mass. 367, 369–70 (1920). Courts have also noted that where a confidential or fiduciary relationship exists and the alleged influencer benefits from the transaction, the circumstances may warrant closer scrutiny. See Heinrich v. Silvernail, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 218, 225–26 (1986). Each case is highly fact-specific, and no single factor is determinative.
