Washington -- Two years ago, on the death of George Garner, the Shepherd of Accokeek, I wrote that one of his regrets was not knowing how his years of legal work to protect the legacy of his rural Maryland neighbor, Howard Vess, actually turned out. George knew Howard had been a victim of financial fraud, perpetrated on the elderly man by an unscrupulous financial advisor.
The litigation is over. George Garner would be pleased that his work was not in vain. There was a successful settlement. The outcome would have been even better had several Maryland judges looked at fewer trees and more forest, figuratively speaking. And the whole case could have been avoided entirely if Maryland law had better guarded against financial advisors becoming their clients' beneficiaries, as do other states, but that's getting ahead of the story.
George's neighbor in Accokeek, Howard Vess, wanted to preserve his rural property after his death so that friends and neighbors could continue to use the trails through his woods for hiking and hunting. The property was also in the Mount Vernon viewshed from across the Potomac, which any elevated development could spoil.
Howard also wanted to leave the balance of his considerable estate to several favorite charities, as he had no survivors in his immediate family. He told this to his extended family, including his niece, Claudia Vess, who kept in touch with him from her home an hour away. All were pleased with the arrangements. Wills and codicils were on file with the county register of wills spelling this out, designating Robert Price, Howard's financial advisor, as personal representative to carry out his instructions. George also knew this from both Howard and Howard's niece.
I knew Howard, the Vess family, and George, and this was my understanding as well.
So it was a shock that preceding Howard's funeral service in 2011, Price described to gathering guests (of which I was one) the ins and outs of dividing up Howard's property for both housing and shopping development. Then, at the beginning of the service, Price announced that a charity of Howard's would be supported by contributions left by guests in envelopes at the funeral home, puzzling those of us who thought Howard's own estate provided well for several charities. After the funeral, Price demurred when discussing next steps with Vess family and friends, explaining that he was taking his own family to Las Vegas, which naturally only raised more suspicions that Price was not carrying out Howard's wishes at all.
A few months later, Howard’s niece discovered that there was a later will, superseding earlier arrangements, which Price had kept in his private office and filed quietly at the courthouse after Howard's death. Instead of rural land preservation and money for charities, the last will made Price, his financial advisor and personal representative, the sole beneficiary.
George Garner and other neighbors supported Howard's niece in
an effort to challenge the surprise will on grounds that Price had taken advantage of
his elderly client. Claudia Vess knew from last conversations with her uncle
before his death that he had been confused about what Price was doing with the
estate, but she had never guessed Price had audaciously made himself sole
beneficiary.
So she challenged the will, hiring a local attorney to file Vess v. Price. George, Howard's closest neighbor whose off-farm business
had been preparing legal briefs for cases at the U.S. Supreme Court, assisted without
fee.
Price's lawyer spared no effort or expense in defending the surprise will.
The battle went on for years through three different Maryland courts. In
the meantime, Price's administration of the will was obviously deficient on multiple grounds. A judge removed Price from his role as personal representative in favor of a new one, appointed by the
court. Fortunately, the successor sold the Vess real property as two
rural acreages, a victory for Howard's intention to prevent urban development.
Because of dozens of procedural motions in Vess v. Price, no court in six
years ever got to the fundamental question: had Price through undue influence taken fraudulent advantage of a putative friendship and violated his fiduciary responsibility to his elderly client, Howard Vess? The case was a procedural standoff. More
time was spent by Maryland courts looking at time stamps and courthouse drop boxes than on
what the case was about. Although Price lost his appointment as personal
representative, Vess counsel was reproved by an appeals court for not explaining the case well, despite George Garner's
thorough research and legal prep sessions.
After George's untimely death in 2017, and after an appeals court defeat
for Vess counsel, based on procedural rather than substantive issues, the case returned to the original
court of jurisdiction for a jury trial. Claudia Vess then replaced her original
counsel with a lawyer who has a strong litigation practice. The new counsel immediately showed she meant business at
the first depositions and serious settlement talks ensued.
In the final 2019 settlement, niece Claudia succeeded in
obtaining several thousand dollars from the estate for four of six of her uncle's
charities, plus returning to the family her uncle's Arlington Cemetery burial-ceremony flag (he had served in the Marine Corps).
Unfortunately, the amounts for the charities were only about
ten percent of what they would have been had Howard Vess's desires been honored, as filed at the courthouse rather than as represented in a surprise will held privately by his financial advisor. Much of the estate proceeds were spent covering the huge legal
expenses of financial advisor Price, even after his removal as personal
representative.
Maryland law must be changed to guard against financial advisors becoming clients' beneficiaries. Lawyers would be disbarred if they
attempted the same chicanery. Financial advisors are often positioned
even better than lawyers to take advantage of their elderly
clients.
Although in the Vess v. Price case a measure of
justice was reached, it took many years of effort to achieve it. The
State of Maryland needs to decide if elder abuse by financial advisors is going
to be tolerated or stopped. It needs to decide if Maryland justice
continues in the tradition of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, Charles Dickens' tale of an
estate that was entirely depleted by its legal bills.
Neighbors often do a good job of watching out for neighbors,
and the story of George Garner and Howard Vess is illustrative, as it ends, if not entirely happily, at least with a silver lining. But nothing would
be better in Maryland than an overdue statutory crackdown, following the lead
of many other states that have better provisions to protect elders against abuse by financial advisors.
