Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
A Warsaw jury recently decided that changes made to a will are invalid.
Arthur K. Helm filed a suit in June 2005 contesting the will of Bernice A. Feeney. He claims that Richard K. Helm and Freida E. Helm, of Warsaw, exerted "undue influence" to persuade Feeney to change the will in August 1997.
Arthur and Richard Helm are nephews of Feeney. Richard Helm was named personal representative in the estate. Richard and Freida Helm were named as heirs in the will.
In July, a Warsaw jury decided the August 1997 version of the will was invalid.
According to the verdict document filed in Kosciusko Superior court, " ... The instrument dated Aug. 25, 1997, as the last will and testament of Bernice A. Feeney is invalid, by reason of undue influence and is not her last will and testament."
The suit, titled Arthur P. Helm v. Richard K. Helm, Freida Helm, Mary Louise Hornack, Kathleen White, Patricia Webster, Martin T. Feeney, Michael Feeney, John Feeney, Patrick Gaughan, Ann Indelicato, Stacey C. Helm Moran, Jennifer L. Helm Craig, Sandra L. Helm and Matthew P. Helm, questions changes made in Feeney's will in 1997.
Arthur Helm claimed Feeney "was of unsound mind and lacked the necessary capacity at the time the instrument was executed; the instrument was not properly executed; the instrument was executed under duress and obtained by fraud; and the instrument was executed as a result of the undue influence of the defendants Richard K. Helm and Freida E. Helm."
In a document filed June 6, 2006, Arthur Helm claims, "... the defendants Richard K. Helm and Freida E. Helm, occupied a dominant role in a confidential relationship with the decedent, Bernice A. Feeney, that they obtained disproportionate benefits from the will, ... and that they participated in the creation of such will. Accordingly, pursuant to Indiana law, the will and the transfer to Richard K. Helm and Freida E. Helm is presumed to be the product of constructive fraud."
Richard K. Helm answered the June 6, 2006, complaint on June 15, 2006, saying the allegations in the complaint "are frivolous; have been conceded by prior pleadings of the plaintiff; they are included for the sole purpose of harassment, wasting judicial and attorney time, and otherwise are improperly included as matters already determined by this court."
The answer to the complaint denied allegations of fraud and requested the jury trial.
