The daughter of Richard Mellon Scaife, the late billionaire newspaper publisher, has claimed that her father was so incapacitated in the years leading up to his 2014 death that he was maneuvered by his attorney into cutting her out of his will.
But in a court filing Monday, lawyers for the Pittsburgh attorney, H. Yale Gutnick, argued that Jennie Scaife has offered such flimsy evidence to back up her claim that her petition should be thrown out.
Not only did Ms. Scaife use “vague terms” and not explain exactly why her father would have been left vulnerable to manipulation, she also did not show how Mr. Gutnick benefited from the various changes made by her father, according to the filing in Westmoreland County Orphans’ Court.
Ms. Scaife’s arguments that her father was an alcoholic, was addicted to medication and had medical problems are “bare statements” and not enough to “establish the weakened intellect that is necessary for an undue influence claim,” the filing states.
Ms. Scaife, 53, of Florida, received nothing following her father’s death. She was not left anything in his 2013 will or a 2010 change — called a codicil — to an earlier will in 2008. Ms. Scaife is asking the court to invalidate those documents.
If a judge tosses out a will because someone had undue influence, the assets are distributed according to any prior, legitimate will, or — in the absence of such a document — to the children. So if Ms. Scaife is to recover some portion of the estate, she must show that she was included in the last will that was free of undue influence, which she alleges was the 2008 document.
But Mr. Gutnick and his co-executor, James M. Walton, claim the 2008 will did not leave anything to Ms. Scaife anyway, although a codicil signed late that year did leave her “family memorabilia” — books, photographs, paintings and art. They say that Ms. Scaife is not challenging the 2008 will — although they raised the prospect that she might do so down the road. They asked the court to limit Ms. Scaife’s claims to only the 2013 will and 2010 codicil.
Over the course of five years, from 2008 to 2013, Mr. Scaife amended his will a number of times, going back and forth between leaving his daughter and son the memorabilia — but no money.
Ultimately, Ms. Scaife’s name was eliminated entirely in the 2013 will and the codicil.
The will changes benefited the Tribune-Review newspapers, Allegheny Foundation and Sarah Scaife Foundation, all of which were controlled in part by Mr. Gutnick , according to Ms. Scaife’s petition. By the time the changes were completed, the estimated $1.4 billion fortune — as well as the memorabilia — went to those beneficiaries.
The 2010 change “was all part of a carefully orchestrated plan by Gutnick to prohibit Scaife family members from having the ability to contest Richard Mellon Scaife’s will,” according to the petition.
However, Mr. Gutnick’s attorneys argued, the alleged benefits he would have reaped from Mr. Scaife through future fees for his law firm to represent Tribune-Review publications “cannot be considered a substantial benefit because a client can discharge its attorney at any time.”
Jonathan D. Silver: jsilver@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1962 or on Twitter @jsilverpg.
First Published: August 17, 2016, 4:00 a.m.
