Son Used a Power of Attorney to Transfer Seven of His Father’s Properties Twelve Days Before He Died — a Court Ruled the Transfers Fraudulent

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT. Illustrative only

Twelve days before Robert Thompson died, seven pieces of real estate that had been in his name were signed over to the woman he’d lived with for decades. The transfers didn’t happen through a last-minute will change or a new deed he personally executed, but through his son using a durable power of attorney while Robert was living with dementia.

That move detonated an already tense blended-family dynamic—and ended with Indiana’s Court of Appeals backing a trial judge who labeled the transfers fraudulent and ordered key properties returned to the estate. The details come from the court’s opinion in a fight over Robert’s supervised estate.

A blended family, a will, and a power of attorney

Robert Thompson was a farmer and business owner in Grant County, Indiana. He had two older children, Bradley and Susan, from his marriage, and later spent more than 30 years living with Tammi Stodghill, with whom he had two more children: Michael and Carri Jo.

By 2019, Robert was in declining health and becoming “more forgetful,” the record says. That year he executed a will naming Michael as personal representative and directing that the estate be divided equally among Michael, Carri Jo, Bradley, and Susan. He also made Michael his attorney-in-fact under a durable power of attorney.

But the health issues didn’t stabilize. By 2022, Robert was unable to recognize Carri Jo, and in 2023 he was diagnosed with dementia. That diagnosis became the backdrop for everything that followed.

The deeds changed hands days before Robert died

On December 11 and 13, 2023, Michael—acting under the power of attorney—transferred seven properties Robert owned to Stodghill. The properties included Robert’s residence and rental properties.

Robert died on December 23, 2023. With him gone, the paper trail suddenly mattered more than anyone’s recollection of what he “wanted,” especially with significant assets no longer appearing to sit inside the estate the will described.

Not every property was treated the same in court later. Bradley ultimately sought the return of four of the seven properties. The other three weren’t pursued because Stodghill had owned them with Robert in joint tenancy and inherited them as the surviving joint tenant.

Then the life insurance money got pulled into it

The property transfers weren’t the only thing that made the probate fight turn aggressive. The estate was also the beneficiary of Robert’s life insurance policy, with proceeds of $74,900.10 paid out after his death.

Even though the probate court had not yet formally appointed Michael as personal representative, he obtained the check and endorsed it as the estate’s personal representative. He told Carri Jo he planned to split the proceeds “three ways” between her, himself, and Stodghill.

Instead of putting the money in a separate estate account, Michael deposited it into an account he had formerly held jointly with Robert and then held individually after Robert’s death. He wrote checks to himself, his wife, his attorney, and Stodghill, and by August 2024, nearly all of the insurance proceeds had been spent.

The probate fight escalated into an emergency removal

In March 2024, Michael petitioned to probate the will and confirm his appointment as personal representative. Bradley filed a competing petition to be appointed instead, and the trial court initially appointed Michael.

Months later, Bradley came back with an emergency petition to remove him. The filing accused Michael of a long list of actions: fraudulently transferring the seven properties while acting as attorney-in-fact, fraudulently claiming to be personal representative to obtain the life insurance funds and converting them, running Robert’s businesses without court approval while commingling funds, selling estate property and terminating income-producing leases without court approval, failing to file an inventory, and being held in contempt in a separate case over failing to account for transactions as attorney-in-fact.

At a January 10, 2025 hearing, Michael, Bradley, and Carri Jo appeared. Stodghill did not—because she had not yet been made a party.

During that hearing, Carri Jo presented a recorded conversation about the property transfers. In that recording, when asked why the properties were taken out of the estate, Stodghill said: “Michael wanted me to put it in my name so we could put it in a trust for all of you . . . so you guys wouldn’t lose everything to Bradley and Susie. That’s exactly how he said it.”

Afterward, the trial court found the property transfers were “fraudulent” and made “with the intent of removing said real property from the Estate in order to deprive beneficiaries of the Will from receiving their share of the value of said real property.” Michael was removed as personal representative, and Bradley was appointed in his place.

Stodghill intervened—but couldn’t undo the fraud finding

Once Bradley became personal representative, he moved to return the improperly transferred properties to the estate. The court issued a summons to Stodghill as the recorded owner of the disputed properties, and she intervened in the case.

At a May 28 hearing, Stodghill argued she should have been present at the January hearing before the court branded the transfers fraudulent. The trial judge didn’t hide the ball: from the bench, the court said it wasn’t going to “back off” its earlier order, but told the parties to “bring it on” if they had more evidence and testimony.

Stodghill tried. She presented evidence that Robert had included her on insurance policies for some of the properties. She also sought testimony—from herself, Michael, and several acquaintances—intended to show Robert wanted property transferred to her instead of left in the estate.

But much of that testimony was blocked. Bradley objected on hearsay grounds and also invoked Indiana’s Dead Man’s Statute against Stodghill and Michael. The trial court sustained the objections and excluded the testimony, though Stodghill made offers of proof.

Stodghill also called Michael’s attorney, Nicholas Podlaski, who had provided estate-planning consultation to Robert. Podlaski was concerned about being both lawyer and witness, and when Stodghill tried to ask about conversations with Robert, Bradley objected based on hearsay and attorney-client privilege. The trial court sustained the hearsay objection. Stodghill’s offer of proof said Podlaski would have testified that Robert wanted Stodghill to have the transferred properties because they had lived together for 30 years and had two children together.

At the end of the May hearing, the trial court said nothing it heard “assuaged” its “deep and abiding belief” that Michael made fraudulent transfers to deprive will beneficiaries of their share. The court ordered the disputed properties returned to the estate.

The appeals court left the trial judge’s orders in place

Stodghill appealed, raising three issues: that her absence at the January hearing required reversal of the fraud finding; that the trial court improperly excluded evidence; and that the court mishandled her attempt to force attorney-witness testimony.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. On the first issue, it said her absence from the January hearing didn’t stop her from protecting her interest because she had the chance to present her case at the May hearing, including cross-examining the witnesses who testified in January. And, critically, the appellate court noted that the types of evidence she wanted to offer would have faced the same hearsay and Dead Man’s Statute hurdles even if she’d been present earlier.

In the end, the ruling locked in a harsh reality for families using powers of attorney as a “shortcut” around estate plans: if the court believes the documents were used to strip assets from an estate and cut out beneficiaries, the transfers can come back—especially when dementia, timing, and recorded explanations collide.