Case Background
Ronald H. Wise, a father of three and a man of significant means, established the Ronald H. Wise Living Trust on August 28, 2020. At the time, his estate included multiple real estate properties in Oregon and substantial investment accounts with Fidelity and Vanguard, totaling an estimated value of $6,860,000. The original terms of this trust distributed his wealth in relatively equal amounts among his second wife, Marsha Wise, and his three children: Robert, Scott, and Todd.
However, the family dynamic shifted as Ronald’s health declined. By late 2020, Ronald began seeking medical care for memory loss. He underwent brain scans and cognitive testing, scoring as low as 10 on SLUMS examinations, which indicated the onset of serious mental impairment. By 2021, physicians diagnosed him with Lewy Body Dementia, a progressive condition that left him with severe cognitive impairment and hallucinations. This illness rendered him entirely dependent on Marsha for basic activities of daily living, including eating, dressing, and bathing.
Cause
The legal battle began when Robert Wise discovered that his father had executed an amendment to the trust on March 26, 2021. This "Purported Amendment" fundamentally stripped the children of their expected inheritance. Robert alleged that Marsha Wise took advantage of Ronald’s weakened mental state and total dependence on her to orchestrate this change. He claimed she isolated Ronald from his children, dictated his communications by writing notes for him to read, and even threatened to divorce him and move out if he did not alter the estate plan to her exclusive benefit.
Injury
The primary injury involved the loss of a prospective economic advantage. Robert Wise originally stood to inherit 24% of the trust’s value. Because of the amendment, his share dropped to zero percent, while Marsha Wise’s share increased to 100% of the remaining trust assets after only small specific gifts were paid out.
Damages Sought
Robert Wise requested that the Court declare the 2021 amendment invalid and reinstate the original 2020 trust. Financially, he sought a judgment for no less than $1,646,000, representing his 24% interest in the estate. He also asked for 9% annual prejudgment interest and the recovery of all attorney fees and legal costs.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The proceedings centered on whether Ronald Wise possessed the mental capacity to change his trust in March 2021 or if Marsha Wise exerted "undue influence" over him. Robert’s legal team argued that a confidential relationship existed between the husband and wife, which Marsha abused to secure an "unfair and unnatural" gift.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Robert Wise.
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Allison C. Bizzano | David B. Hutchinson
Defendant(s): Marsha Wise, individually and as Trustee of the Ronald H. Wise Living Trust.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Victoria Blachly | Josepheen Strauss
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Robert's counsel argued that Marsha had systematically replaced Ronald’s independent judgment with her own. They presented evidence that Marsha had searched for the estate planning attorneys, drove Ronald to the meetings, and remained present during the execution of the documents. They emphasized that Ronald had been instructed by doctors not to drive and could no longer manage his own affairs.
Marsha’s defense team countered by filing an answer that denied wrongdoing. They maintained that Ronald’s decisions were his own and suggested that the children were seeking to interfere with their father's actual wishes. They even raised the possibility that if the children continued the challenge, they might violate "No Contest" provisions within the trust, which could result in the Court invalidating any bequests to them.
Claims
Robert Wise brought four distinct claims for relief against Marsha:
Undue Influence: He argued that Marsha used her position as Ronald’s caretaker to force a change in the trust while Ronald was highly susceptible due to dementia.
Declaratory Judgment: He asked the Court to officially rule that the amendment was void because Ronald lacked the legal capacity to sign it.
Intentional Interference with Prospective Inheritance: This claim alleged that Marsha purposely used improper means to cut Robert out of his father's will.
Attorney Fees: Robert argued that Marsha should pay his legal bills so that the estate assets were not further depleted by her alleged misconduct.
Defense
The defense relied on the validity of the signed legal documents. Marsha's team argued that Ronald was a man who knew his own mind, despite his medical diagnosis. They asserted that the Court had the authority to uphold the amendment and suggested the other beneficiaries were not merely "nominal" but active participants whose interests should be protected unless they violated trust provisions.
Jury Verdict
After hearing the evidence regarding Ronald’s health and Marsha’s role in his final years, the jury reached a decision in March 2026. The jury faced specific questions regarding the claim of Intentional Interference with Prospective Inheritance.
The jury found that Robert Wise successfully proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Marsha Wise had intentionally interfered with his prospective inheritance. They further determined that Robert sustained actual financial damages because of this interference.
When asked to quantify the loss, the jury awarded Robert a percentage-based recovery. They concluded that Robert Wise sustained damages equal to 24% of the trust’s value, effectively restoring the portion of the estate he had stood to inherit before the amendment. This verdict provided the basis for a judgment to void the amendment and hold Marsha accountable for the lost inheritance.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
