Warning Regarding Assisted Living Contracts

A recent case in Multnomah County, Drury v. Assisted Living Concepts, considered whether an arbitration clause in an assisted living contract precluded a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the children of deceased facility resident, Dorothy.

Dorothy was suffering from dementia and her mental capacity was severely impaired at the time her son, Eddie, admitted her to the defendant’s assisted living facility. Eddie signed the facility’s admission paperwork and residency agreement. At that time he was not yet Dorothy’s guardian or conservator and did not then have a power of attorney for her.

The residency agreement included a clause requiring arbitration for all claims or disputes relating to the agreement or the services provided “to You by Us.” After about a year in the facility, Dorothy died as a result of injuries sustained in a fall. Her estate’s personal representative sued the facility for wrongful death resulting from negligent conduct. The defendants (unsuccessfully) moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the estate was bound to the residency agreement as a third-party beneficiary of the contract.

On appeal, the court agreed that Dorothy’s estate was not bound to the agreement and its arbitration clause. Under general contract law principles, a third-party beneficiary is presumed to assent to a contract when it accepts benefits or otherwise seeks to enforce rights under that contract. Dorothy was a “third-party donee beneficiary” of the residency agreement signed by her son. The critical issue for the court was Dorothy’s mental capacity - or lack thereof. Even though Dorothy accepted the contract’s benefits (the facility’s services and apartment), her lack of requisite mental capacity meant that her acceptance of benefits did not ratify the contract. 

This case emphasizes the importance of getting one's legal affairs in order BEFORE you become incapacitated, particularly your estate plan that includes a power of attorney and an advance directive for medical care. 

Samuels Yoelin Kantor Seminar Series

Legal Issues for the Entrepreneur
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2011, 6:30 p.m. at ClubSport


Presented by Victoria Blachly, Ted Simpson and Michael Walker

Are you a small business owner — or thinking about starting a new business?

Later this month,Victoria Blachly, Ted Simpson and Michael Walker are leading a free seminar for ClubSport members and guests.

"Legal Issues for the Entrepreneur: Launching and Sustaining Your Business in Volatile Times" is designed to educate small business owners and those thinking about starting a new venture. Seminar attendees will find out how to:

  • Protect your business in a litigious and economically challenging environment
  • Determine the best type of corporate entity for your business
  • Secure business assets through non-compete and non-disclosure agreements

After the presentation, attendees are invited to mingle and network as Mauro Hernandez of Sherwood-based K&MWines, Alchemy Vineyard, shares small production wines for tasting and purchase.

The seminar will be held Thursday, September 29, starting at 6:30 p.m. If you are a ClubSport member or would like to attend as a guest of Samuels Yoelin Kantor, you can register for this complimentary seminar at the activities desk or by calling 503-968-4555.

Stay tuned to this blog for information about additional seminars, which are complimentary, open to the public, and held at the Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP offices and other locations.
 

Disinheriting Your Child: US versus UK

Your will determines what your loved ones will inherit or what your unloved ones will not inherit, right?  

Well - not always.  

The nine community property states in the West and Southwest can somewhat protect a spouse’s interests and the remaining states (including Oregon) have some version of a statutory “elective share” or “election against the will” provision.  Those laws may provide some protection to the spouse, regardless of the will. 

But the children you leave behind don't have such statutory protection in the U.S.  Absent findings of undue influence, mistake, or legal obligations (such as in the case of child support), a court will generally uphold a will that expressly disinherits the testator’s child. (Note that Louisiana’s civil law system is the exception here and some states’ homestead laws do protect children under age 18 from the loss of a family residence.)

But let's look at England - where it's more of a challenge to disinherit your children.  Based on the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act of 1975, English law identifies a class of people who can challenge an estate’s disposition of property by claiming they did not receive a “reasonable financial provision.” The class of potential challengers includes current and former (non-remarried) spouses, certain cohabiters, children (adult or minor, natural or stepchildren), and certain other persons who were “being maintained, either wholly or partly” by the deceased. “

 A recent case from the England and Wales Court of Appeal, Ilott v. Mitson, [2011] EWCA Civ 346, drew attention for its facts as well as the court’s discussion of what “reasonable provision” means.

Melita Jackson died in 2004 at age 70, leaving a residual estate of about £486,000 to three animal and wild bird protective charities.  In both her will and an accompanying letter, Melita expressly disinherited her only child, then 47 year-old Heather. Melita and Heather had been estranged since Heather left home some thirty years prior. In the interim, Melita had not provided any financial support and disapproved of Heather’s subsequent marriage and decision to have five children.

Heather challenged her mother’s will under the Inheritance Act, and a district judge awarded her £50,000 as a “reasonable provision.” When Heather asked for a larger amount, the three charities cross-appealed, and the reviewing judge knocked Heather’s share down to £0.  The Court of Appeal found the total disinheritance to be "unreasonable" and reversed the decision, remanding the case back to (a new) judge for determination whether the £50,000 should be increased. 

I'm sure the charities thought that ruling was for the birds.