Close this search box.

Trust Benefiting Lawyer Creates Undue Influence Presumption

Print Article
Undue Influence


To be valid, a will or trust must reflect the intentions of a competent signer. If the signer is deemed to have been subject to the undue influence of someone else, the document can be invalidated. Even documents carefully prepared by lawyers sometimes get successfully challenged. When the lawyer is a beneficiary, additional rules allow challenges to the documents.

Siv Ljungwe was, by all reports, an accomplished teacher and scholar. She was also an accomplished She and her husband lived in California, and managed to amass an estate worth several million dollars by making smart real estate investments. They also raised their two children together.

The couple’s daughter tragically died in 1985. The couple separated in the mid-1990s, but never divorced. When their son was diagnosed with brain cancer, her mental health began to deteriorate.

Legal proceedings begin

Ms. Ljungwe was apparently convinced that her son’s cancer could be cured if he would just get out of his hospice bed. She was disruptive at the hospice center, and her husband had to secure a protective order to prevent her from interfering with their son’s care.

There were two hospitalizations for Ms. Ljungwe during her son’s final illness, both based on her paranoia and delusions. She was also arrested three times for violating her husband’s restraining order.

At that point Ms. Ljungwe walked into the Encinitas office of attorney Carl Dimeff. She asked for his help with the restraining order, and hired Mr. Dimeff as her attorney.

For the next six years, Ms. Ljungwe would regularly evidence a peculiar attraction to her lawyer. She regularly wrote him notes with sexual innuendo and peculiar references. In the fourth year of their professional relationship, she made it clear that she wanted to change her estate plan to favor Mr. Dimeff.

The prior estate plan

In 2004, Ms. Ljungwe had signed a living trust prepared by Mr. Dimeff. She was already evincing mental health problems, but her trust was consistent with earlier estate planning documents. Especially since both of her children had died, it made sense for her to leave her entire estate to charities.

The 2004 trust left Ms. Ljungwe’s estate in equal shares to four charitable organizations. The four charities she listed:

  • NPR (National Public Radio) Foundation
  • San Diego State University Research Foundation
  • US Fund for Unicef
  • Doctors Without Borders / Médicins Sans Frontières

When she told her lawyer that she wanted to leave her estate to him, he didn’t tell her she should not, or that she should seek counseling. He did (correctly) tell her that he wasn’t permitted to prepare a new trust naming himself as beneficiary. He suggested that she talk with another lawyer about her estate plan, and he referred her to an attorney who had recently represented him, Kirk Miller.

The 2008 trust

Mr. Miller (who had represented Mr. Dimeff in an unrelated legal malpractice case) did write a new trust for Ms. Ljungwe, which she signed in 2008. The new trust left her entire estate to Mr. Dimeff.

While Mr. Dimeff did not prepare the actual trust document, he did have as many as six separate telephone conversations and one in-person meeting with Mr. Miller while he prepared the document. He also prepared a list of Ms. Ljungwe’s assets for Mr. Miller to include as part of the trust.

When Ms. Ljungwe died in 2010, her husband learned of the estate plan changes for the first time. He informed the four charities that they had been included in, and then excluded from, her estate. None of them had been aware they were named in her 2004 trust, either.

The trust contest

The four charities filed suit against Mr. Dimeff, arguing that the 2008 trust was invalid and that they should share Ms. Ljungwe’s estate. They argued that Ms. Ljungwe was mentally incapable of executing the trust document, that she was the victim of undue influence from Mr. Dimeff, and that he had been involved in preparation of the trust document. By that time he had already taken possession of over $1.3 million of Ms. Ljungwe’s assets.

The charities’ lawsuit went to trial in 2014, and the probate judge agreed with the charities. The 2008 trust was invalidated, and Mr. Dimeff was ordered to return the $1.3 million. He was also ordered to pay another $2.6 million in damages, plus $1.5 million in attorneys fees and costs incurred by the charities. In other words, instead of inheriting several million dollars from his client, Mr. Dimeff lost over $4 million from his own funds.

The appeal

Mr. Dimeff appealed, arguing that the trial judge had insufficient evidence to support the judgment. Particularly, he insisted that he was not involved in drafting the 2008 trust, and that Mr. Miller prepared his client’s estate plan.

The California Court of Appeal last month ruled against Mr. Dimeff, and upheld the entire trial court ruling. The appellate judges noted that both Mr. Dimeff and Mr. Miller clearly knew about Ms. Ljungwe’s mental illness. They criticized Mr. Dimeff for not discouraging Ms. Ljungwe’s notions, or even helping her secure counseling or mental health treatment.

The court also agreed with the trial judge that Ms. Ljungwe was subjected to undue influence by Mr. Dimeff. There is a general rule of law that allows undue influence to be presumed from a close, confidential relationship between the signer and beneficiary of a trust. The attorney-client relationship is just such a confidential relationship. By the time she signed the 2008 trust, Mr. Dimeff was also trustee of her prior trust, creating a second confidential relationship. Both of those relationships justified the finding of undue influence.

California law has an unusual provision, not shared in most other states (and not present in Arizona). Under the California statute, any will or trust naming the drafter of the document as a beneficiary is automatically invalidated. In addition to finding undue influence by Mr. Dimeff, the trial court had found that he was a drafter of a key part of the 2008 trust — the list of trust assets. That meant the entire document was invalid, and the Court of Appeals agreed. NPR Foundation v. Dimeff, April 20, 2017.

Stay up to date

Subscribe to our Newsletter to get our takes on some of the situations families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities find themselves in. These posts help guide you in the decision making process and point out helpful tips and nuances to take advantage of. Enter your email below to have our entries sent directly to your inbox!

Robert B. Fleming


Robert Fleming is a Fellow of both the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. He has been certified as a Specialist in Estate and Trust Law by the State Bar of Arizona‘s Board of Legal Specialization, and he is also a Certified Elder Law Attorney by the National Elder Law Foundation. Robert has a long history of involvement in local, state and national organizations. He is most proud of his instrumental involvement in the Special Needs Alliance, the premier national organization for lawyers dealing with special needs trusts and planning.

Robert has two adult children, two young grandchildren and a wife of over fifty years. He is devoted to all of them. He is also very fond of Rosalind Franklin (his office companion corgi), and his homebound cat Muninn. He just likes people, their pets and their stories.

Elizabeth N.R. Friman


Elizabeth Noble Rollings Friman is a principal and licensed fiduciary at Fleming & Curti, PLC. Elizabeth enjoys estate planning and helping families navigate trust and probate administrations. She is passionate about the fiduciary work that she performs as a trustee, personal representative, guardian, and conservator. Elizabeth works with CPAs, financial professionals, case managers, and medical providers to tailor solutions to complex family challenges. Elizabeth is often called upon to serve as a neutral party so that families can avoid protracted legal conflict. Elizabeth relies on the expertise of her team at Fleming & Curti, and as the Firm approaches its third decade, she is proud of the culture of care and consideration that the Firm embodies. Finding workable solutions to sensitive and complex family challenges is something that Elizabeth and the Fleming & Curti team do well.

Amy F. Matheson


Amy Farrell Matheson has worked as an attorney at Fleming & Curti since 2006. A member of the Southern Arizona Estate Planning Council, she is primarily responsible for estate planning and probate matters.

Amy graduated from Wellesley College with a double major in political science and English. She is an honors graduate of Suffolk University Law School and has been admitted to practice in Arizona, Massachusetts, New York, and the District of Columbia.

Prior to joining Fleming & Curti, Amy worked for American Public Television in Boston, and with the international trade group at White & Case, LLP, in Washington, D.C.

Amy’s husband, Tom, is an astronomer at NOIRLab and the Head of Time Domain Services, whose main project is ANTARES. Sadly, this does not involve actual time travel. Amy’s twin daughters are high school students; Finn, her Irish Red and White Setter, remains a puppy at heart.

Famous people's wills

Matthew M. Mansour


Matthew is a law clerk who recently earned his law degree from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. His undergraduate degree is in psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Matthew has had a passion for advocacy in the Tucson community since his time as a law student representative in the Workers’ Rights Clinic. He also has worked in both the Pima County Attorney’s Office and the Pima County Public Defender’s Office. He enjoys playing basketball, caring for his cat, and listening to audiobooks narrated by the authors.