Kimberlyn Ray v. Edna A. Williams ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    KIMBERLYN      RAY      and    DONNA )
    WILLIAMS,                            )
    )
    Plaintiffs,            )
    )
    v.                              )     C.A. No. 2017-0718-MTZ
    )
    EDNA A. WILLIAMS,                    )
    )
    Defendant.             )
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Date Submitted: December 12, 2019
    Date Decided: March 31, 2020
    Neil R. Lapinski and Phillip A. Giordano, GORDON, FOURNARIS &
    MAMMARELLA, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiffs and
    Counterclaim Defendants Kimberlyn Ray and Donna Williams.
    Jason C. Powell, THE POWELL FIRM, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for
    Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Edna A. Williams.
    ZURN, Vice Chancellor.
    In this family dispute, I have the privilege of discerning the final wishes and
    intentions of Ronald R. Williams, who passed away on October 8, 2017. 1 In July
    2017, Ronald knew he was dying and decided to spend his last weeks free from
    mistreatment by his caretaker and third wife, Edna A. Williams, who is the
    defendant and counterclaim plaintiff in this matter. With his children’s assistance,
    Ronald left Edna and entered the care of his daughters by his second marriage:
    plaintiffs and counterclaim defendants, Kimberlyn Ray and Donna Williams. 2
    While under his daughters’ care, Ronald took measures to excise Edna from his
    finances and final days. He also changed his burial plans, deciding that he would
    like to be buried in the Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery, rather than in his
    marital plot at Gracelawn Cemetery with Edna.
    Edna claims Ronald’s decisions were the product of his daughters’ undue
    influence.     She seeks to unwind his decisions to make his daughters his
    beneficiaries and to be buried in the Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery. This
    post-trial decision finds that Ronald made those decisions independently, and
    leaves Ronald’s finances and body as he wanted them.
    1
    In this family dispute, I use the parties’ first names in pursuit of clarity. I intend no
    familiarity or disrespect. Citations in the form of “[Name] Tr. ––” refer to witness
    testimony from the trial transcripts. Citations in the form of “[Name] Dep. ––” refer to
    deposition transcripts in the record. Citations in the form of “PTO ¶ ––” refer to
    stipulated facts in the pre-trial order. See Docket Item (“D.I.”) 103. Citations in the form
    of “JX –– at ––” refer to a trial exhibit.
    2
    See PTO ¶ 5.
    1
    I.     BACKGROUND
    After Ronald passed away on October 8, 2017,3 Kimberlyn and Donna
    sought to effectuate their father’s wishes. Edna’s disagreement led Kimberlyn and
    Donna to turn to this Court for assistance. On October 10, Kimberlyn and Donna
    filed a Petition for Declaration of Deposit of Remains of Ronald R. Williams, 4 as
    well as a motion for a temporary restraining order prohibiting Edna from
    interfering with their disposal of Ronald’s remains.5 They submitted a number of
    documents to the Court in an attempt to support Ronald’s decision to be buried in
    the Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery (the “Veterans Cemetery”) and to
    exclude Edna from his funeral arrangements. After argument on October 11,
    Chancellor Bouchard granted Plaintiffs’ temporary restraining order, and gave
    Kimberlyn and Donna authority to dispose of Ronald’s remains (the “October 2017
    TRO”) pending a final merits determination.6
    On November 13, Edna filed an Answer and Counterclaims.7 Edna brings
    nine counts against Kimberlyn and Donna. Count I asserts a claim for undue
    influence or lack of testamentary capacity; Count II seeks invalidation of
    3
    PTO ¶ 1.
    4
    D.I. 1 [hereinafter “Pet.”].
    5
    D.I. 6.
    6
    D.I. 21, 100.
    7
    D.I. 23.
    2
    beneficiary designations and joint account title designations and damages; Count
    III seeks pre- and post-mortem books and records and demands an accounting;
    Count IV asserts a claim for tortious interference with prospective inheritance;
    Count V asserts a claim for tortious interference with economic interest; Count VI
    asserts a claim for unjust enrichment; Count VII seeks imposition of a resulting
    trust; Count VIII seeks a constructive trust; and Count IX seeks a declaration of
    Ronald’s burial and last rights.8
    Edna seeks an order declaring that she is authorized to make Ronald’s last
    funeral and burial arrangements, including but not limited to the disinterment of his
    remains and reburial in their marital plot at Gracelawn Cemetery (“Gracelawn”);
    declaring that all documents and beneficiary designations procured and unduly
    influenced by Donna and Kimberlyn be rescinded or otherwise determined invalid;
    compelling an accounting by Kimberlyn and Donna of Ronald’s assets for the
    period of July 30, 2017 through October 8, 2017; and assessing damages against
    Kimberlyn and Donna, including attorneys’ fees and costs.9 Kimberlyn and Donna
    seek an order denying Edna’s requested relief and determining that Ronald’s body
    8
    D.I. 23.
    9
    D.I. 119 at 60–61.
    3
    should remain in the Veterans Cemetery and that changes to his beneficiary
    designations are valid, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.10
    This case was reassigned to me on October 4, 201811 and proceeded through
    discovery. I held a four-day trial from June 3, 2019 through June 6.12 At trial, nine
    witnesses testified live: Edna Williams, Kimberlyn Ray, Neil Kaye, M.D., Donna
    Williams, Patricia Williams, Lawrence Ray, Vincent Hazzard, Ronald R. Williams,
    Jr. (“Ronnie”), and Tiffine Williams. In addition, the parties submitted seventy
    exhibits. The parties completed post-trial briefing on October 31,13 and I held
    post-trial argument on December 12.14 These are my findings of fact based on the
    preponderance of the evidence presented at trial.
    A.    The Williams Family
    Ronald was born on January 15, 1947.15        He was a hard-working and
    generous man with a moral compass.16 He had a high school education and served
    in the military.17 Ronald was married three times and fathered five children. He
    10
    D.I. 123 at 58–59.
    11
    D.I. 55.
    12
    D.I. 112, 113, 114, 115.
    13
    D.I. 119, 123, 125.
    14
    D.I. 131, 132.
    15
    JX 32 at StatePension000080.
    16
    Edna Tr. 10:17–18.
    17
    Edna Tr. 11:3.
    4
    first married Joyce Lewis and fathered one daughter with her, Cheryl Lewis, while
    serving in the military in Germany.18 Joyce and Ronald divorced, and Ronald then
    married Patricia.19 Together they had Donna, Kimberlyn, and Ronnie.20 Ronald
    also had another son, Jonathan Williams.21 In 1995, Ronald left Patricia and
    married Edna.22
    1.        Ronald’s Children And Grandchildren
    Ronald’s daughter Kimberlyn has five children: only her daughter Ashly
    was involved in these events.23 After divorcing her previous husband in 2006,
    Kimberlyn married Lawrence Ray in October 2015.24 They lived in Philadelphia
    until 2018, when they moved to Newark, Delaware. 25           26
    Kimberlyn worked as a
    traffic flagger until 2016, when she went back to school.27 She then worked as a
    18
    PTO ¶ 3; Edna Tr. 8:15–18.
    19
    Kimberlyn Tr. 252:24–253:3.
    20
    PTO ¶ 3; Edna Tr. 9; Kimberlyn Tr. 499; Donna Tr. 627.
    21
    The parties disagree as to who Jonathan’s mother is. Compare D.I. 119 at 3, with D.I.
    123 at 8.
    22
    Edna Tr. 10:9–12; Patricia Tr. 733:9–22; Patricia Tr. 733:22–734:2.
    23
    Kimberlyn Tr. 249:16–20.
    24
    Kimberlyn Tr. 249:7–8, 249:13–15.
    25
    Kimberlyn Tr. 263:22–24.
    26
    Kimberlyn Tr. 247:23–24.
    27
    Kimberlyn Tr. 250:8–18.
    5
    phlebotomist from October 2014 until July 2017. At that time, Kimberlyn stopped
    working to help care for Ronald.28
    Donna also lives in Newark.29 Donna has one minor daughter, N.W.30
    N.W.’s father is Vincent Hazzard, who is a military veteran.31 Vincent and Ronald
    were friendly and talked about their military service and life in general.32 Donna
    has allowed several family members to live with her over the years: her “house
    was like a revolving door some days.”33 Donna has always been closest with her
    sister Kimberlyn,34 whose daughter Ashly frequently visited and stayed with
    Donna while Ronald was living in Donna’s home.35 Ashly’s friend and father of
    her child, Chris Ikomi, also visited Donna’s house during that period.36 After
    Ronald’s death, Patricia moved in with Donna.37
    28
    Kimberlyn Tr. 250:19–251:1.
    29
    Kimberlyn Tr. 401:24–402:10.
    30
    Vincent Tr. 925:18–21.
    31
    Vincent Tr. 925:18–21, 944:2–10, 946:9–947:2.
    32
    Vincent Tr. 944:2–10, 946:9–947:2.
    33
    Donna Tr. 714:19-21.
    34
    Donna Tr. 627:23–24.
    35
    See Donna Tr. 714:14–21.
    36
    Kimberlyn Tr. 448:6–449:12; Donna Tr. 714:14–21.
    37
    Donna Tr. 627:12–14; Patricia 755:1–757:19; see also Donna Tr. 630:5–14.
    6
    Ronnie is married to Tiffine Williams.38 They live in New Castle, Delaware
    with their two children.39 Ronnie and Tiffine regularly visited Ronald and Edna at
    their home from 2015 to 2017.40 Ronnie had a relationship with his sisters Donna
    and Kimberlyn until Ronald left Edna in July 2017.41 At that time, Ronnie and
    Tiffine stopped speaking to his sisters and father.42 Ronnie refused to reach out to
    Ronald even after Patricia tried to convince him to do so in Ronald’s final days.43
    Ronnie also developed a strained relationship with his mother Patricia, who was
    living with him until he asked her to move out.44 In the tumultuous days around
    Ronald’s death, Ronnie told Patricia that she could no longer live with him, and
    she feared that Ronnie might hit her.45 Ronnie felt that Edna treated Ronald well
    and has supported Edna’s position throughout this litigation.46 He has memory
    problems due to a car accident.47
    38
    Tiffine Tr. 1005:8–11.
    39
    Tiffine Tr. 1005:5–15.
    40
    Edna Tr. 59:1–3, 59:23–60:4.
    41
    See Kimberlyn Tr. 456:2–8; Donna Tr. 601:9–602:3, 628:4–629:14, 816:17–19;
    Patricia Tr. 742:5–13.
    42
    See Kimberlyn Tr. 456:2–8; Donna Tr. 601:9–602:3, 628:4–629:14, 816:17–19;
    Patricia Tr. 742:5–13.
    43
    Donna Tr. 629:9–14, 630:4–14; Patricia Tr. 742:3–20.
    44
    Donna Tr. 627:12–14; Patricia Tr. 755:1–757:19.
    45
    Donna Tr. 627:12–14; Patricia Tr. 755:1–757:19; see also Donna Tr. 630:5–14.
    46
    See, e.g., Ronnie Tr. 1003:11–16.
    47
    Ronnie Tr. 965:8–11.
    7
    2.         Ronald And Edna
    In the 1990s, Ronald worked as a certified nursing assistant at Delaware
    Psychiatric Center.48          In 1992, he met Edna, who was working at Delaware
    Psychiatric Center as a psychiatric nursing supervisor after earning her associate’s
    degree in nursing.49 Ronald and Edna had an affair for some time before Ronald
    left Patricia and married Edna in September 1995.50 Edna and Ronald had no
    children together, but Ronald helped raise Edna’s daughter from a previous
    marriage.51
    Patricia and Ronald continued to have a romantic relationship for
    approximately six years after he married Edna, until around 2002.52 Thereafter,
    they maintained a friendly relationship and spoke at holidays and family
    gatherings.53 Patricia did not like Edna but “always tolerated her because she was
    in the family and [her] children . . . were involved.”54
    48
    Edna Tr. 9:15–20, 10:23–24.
    49
    Edna Tr. 7:6–8:4.
    50
    Edna Tr. 9:19–10:12; Patricia Tr. 733:22–734:2.
    51
    Edna Tr. 8:12–24.
    52
    See Patricia Tr. 734:3–735:9.
    53
    Patricia Tr. 734:17–19, 735:7–12.
    54
    Patricia Tr. 735:15–18.
    8
    Ronald loved Edna.55      They enjoyed watching television, going to flea
    markets, cooking, traveling, and frequenting Atlantic City.56      Edna described
    Ronald as “[t]he most wonderful man [she] ever met.”57 Donna confirmed that
    there was “no doubt” Ronald loved Edna until the day that he died.58
    Edna and Ronald jointly held several properties and accounts. They jointly
    owned their marital home in Smyrna, Delaware, and a rental property located on
    4th Street in Wilmington.59 Edna and Ronald held a joint account at PNC, and joint
    credit cards at Citibank, Visa, and Discover.60
    In 2006, Ronald took out a $100,000 life insurance plan with MetLife (the
    “MetLife Policy”).61 He initially named Edna as the primary beneficiary and his
    mother as the secondary or contingent beneficiary. 62 Ronald also named Edna as
    the beneficiary of a $7,000 State of Delaware death burial benefit policy (the
    “Death Benefit”).63 Edna was aware that she was the primary beneficiary on the
    55
    See, e.g., Donna Tr. 819:11–13, 911:19–22.
    56
    Edna Tr. 11.
    57
    Edna Tr. 10.
    58
    Donna Tr. 911:19–912:1.
    59
    Edna Tr. 12, 50.
    60
    Edna Tr. 85:7–10, 91–92; see also JX 60.
    61
    Edna Tr. 93–94; JX 64.
    62
    Edna Tr. 93:21–24.
    63
    Edna Tr. 86–87.
    9
    MetLife Policy and that Ronald held the Death Benefit.64 Eventually, Ronald
    would name Kimberlyn and Donna as the beneficiaries of both the MetLife Policy
    and Death Benefit.65 Ronald never discussed with Edna naming Kimberlyn or
    Donna as the beneficiaries of either asset.66
    In 1997, Ronald and Edna purchased joint burial plots at Gracelawn
    Cemetery in New Castle, Delaware.67 They paid for the plots over several years.68
    Ronald and Edna signed the plot purchase agreement and requested that they read
    “Together Forever.”69 Ronald’s family knew he had purchased the Gracelawn
    plots and assumed that, at the time he purchased them, he was to be buried with
    Edna.70 Ronald expressed that he wanted a non-religious ceremony,71 and he
    wanted to be buried in a black pinstripe suit, wearing a hat.72 When Ronald and
    Edna’s relationship was healthy, Ronald told Edna that he did not want to be
    64
    Edna Tr. 86:19–21, 94:1–5.
    65
    Edna Tr. 87:2–5; see also JX 10; JX 12.
    66
    Edna Tr. 87:24–88:2, 94:10–16. After Ronald had a falling out with Donna and
    Kimberlyn in 2012, he told Donna and others that he did not plan on leaving anything to
    his daughters.
    Id. 94:16–19. 67
         JX 45; Edna Tr. 96:9–16.
    68
    Edna Tr. 96:17–18, 102, 432.
    69
    JX 45.
    70
    Kimberlyn Tr. 432:20–433:2, 433:6–13, 434:9–14.
    71
    Edna Tr. 96:20–21, 97:1–5.
    72
    Edna Tr. 97:6–10.
    10
    buried at the Veterans Cemetery and that he intended to be buried at Gracelawn.73
    But he made it clear that “[h]e wanted to be recognized for his service” with an
    honor guard, which Edna assumed was “a three-gun salute in honor of a veteran at
    their burial ceremony.”74
    Ronald and Edna remained married until Ronald died. Their relationship,
    like many in the Williams family, ebbed and flowed. This case centers on the state
    of their marriage in the months before Ronald passed away in 2017, when Ronald
    left Edna to live with and be cared for by his daughters Kimberlyn and Donna.
    The variable nature of relationships within the Williams family, and between
    Ronald and Edna, provides important context for that time.
    3. The Williams Family Relationships
    Relationships between members of the Williams family were periodically
    strained, and other family members took sides when a dispute erupted.75 Ronald’s
    relationship with Edna was at the heart of many family schisms.76 Edna and her
    73
    Edna Tr. 96:18–20, 123-26.
    74
    Edna Tr. 97:10–12, 124:10–11. Edna later contended that Donna and Kimberlyn failed
    to provide an honor guard at Ronald’s funeral. See
    id. 97:10–13. Edna
    is incorrect.
    Ronald had a “minimum requirement” honor guard because the riflemen were
    unavailable for his ceremony. See Donna Tr. 651:7–652:9.
    75
    See, e.g., Kimberlyn Tr. 254:21–255:21; Donna Tr. 627:23–628:15.
    76
    See, e.g., JX 22; JX 6 at Plaintiffs 000289–000300.
    11
    family have always been at odds with Ronald’s daughters and their families.77
    Kimberlyn and Donna blamed Edna for their parents’ failed marriage, and came to
    dislike Edna for the way she treated their father.78
    From 1995 through 2006, Kimberlyn did not see Ronald or have a
    meaningful relationship with him because of his marriage with Edna.79 While not
    fond of Edna, Kimberlyn still respected her because she was married to Ronald.80
    Donna’s relationship with her father after his marriage to Edna was similarly
    chilly, but she was in “sporadic” contact with her father.81 Starting in 1997 and
    continuing into her young adulthood, Donna periodically lived with her father and
    Edna, and she remained in contact with him, including through her time at basic
    training.82 When Donna broke her pelvic bone during basic training around 2001
    or 2002, Ronald drove twelve hours to South Carolina to pick her up for leave.83
    While at first Donna did not like Edna or understand why her father left her
    mother for Edna, she “eventually came to understand. This type of stuff happens.
    77
    See, e.g., JX 21; JX 22.
    78
    See, e.g., Donna Tr. 631:2–9.
    79
    Edna Tr. 41–44.
    80
    See Kimberlyn Tr. 413:2–4, 429:15–17.
    81
    Donna Tr. 632:19–633:3.
    82
    Donna Tr. 626:22–627:1, 633:4–12, 633:24–634:1.
    83
    Donna Tr. 633:15–21.
    12
    My mother wasn’t perfect.”84 Donna and Edna bonded.85 Donna ultimately came
    to support Ronald’s decision to marry Edna,86 and Edna became an influential part
    of Donna’s life.87         Edna influenced Donna to pursue her advanced nursing
    degrees.88     And Donna’s relationship with Ronald and Edna progressed after
    Donna reached out to them following Edna’s daughter’s death in 2006.89
    Ronnie also had a strained relationship with his father for some time prior to
    2012.90 Ronald became unhappy with his son after Ronnie was incarcerated after
    making a statement in court that displeased Ronald.91 Edna and Ronald only saw
    Ronnie “occasionally.”92 But over time, Ronnie and his father “cultivated a very
    good relationship.”93
    84
    Donna Tr. 631:12–14; see also
    id. 632:8–13. 85
         Donna Tr. 631:15–17, 626:20, 627:1–2.
    86
    Donna Tr. 631:18–20.
    87
    Donna Tr. 626:16–18, 627:2–5.
    88
    Donna Tr. 626:16–18, 627:2–5.
    89
    Edna Tr. 44–45.
    90
    Edna. Tr. 116:9–13.
    91
    Edna Tr. 116:14–17.
    92
    Edna Tr. 116:7.
    93
    Edna Tr. 116:11–13.
    13
    a. Ronald And Edna’s 2012 Separation
    Even though they experienced happy times, Ronald and Edna’s relationship
    was “rocky.”94 Ronald left Edna for the first time in 2012.95 At that time, Ronald
    and Edna were arguing frequently.96          He decided to leave after a particular
    argument with Edna after a family barbecue.97 Kimberlyn had invited Patricia,
    which angered Edna.98 Edna angrily and “colorful[ly]” asked Ronald why Patricia
    was there.99 Ronald became “bewildered,” avoided her question, and left the
    room.100 Donna and Kimberlyn did not like the way Edna had spoken to Ronald;
    both sisters confronted Edna, and Donna physically threatened her.101              The
    argument led to “very ill feelings” between Donna and Edna.102 That night, Donna
    94
    Patricia Tr. 735:21–23; see also Edna Tr. 47:8–11 (discussing how Ronald left Edna
    considering their problems in 2012).
    95
    Donna Tr. 600–01.
    96
    Kimberlyn Tr. 503:10–13; Donna Tr. 600:3–9.
    97
    See Edna Tr. 46:13–47: 11.
    98
    Edna Tr. 46:13–15, 46:18; Kimberlyn Tr. 503:16–19, 504:12–24. Kimberlyn and Edna
    dispute whether Edna had prior knowledge of Patricia’s attendance. Compare Edna Tr.
    46:15–16, with Kimberlyn Tr. 504:15–20. That is irrelevant for purposes of this opinion.
    99
    Edna Tr. 46:13–19.
    100
    Edna Tr. 46:13–23.
    101
    See Edna Tr. 46:22–47:3; Donna Tr. 505:3–5, 818:15–18.
    102
    Edna Tr. 47:3–7, 110:22–11:1.
    14
    and Kimberlyn stayed at Edna and Ronald’s home.103 Edna continued to disrespect
    Ronald, and so her argument with Donna and Kimberlyn continued.104
    Ronald decided to leave Edna and moved in with Donna and Kimberlyn at
    his rental property in Wilmington.105 Edna arrived home to find that Ronald had
    left.106 Ronald did not explain his reasons for leaving to Edna.107 He told his
    daughters he left because “[h]e was tired of [Edna], tired of the way she would
    treat him. He was just tired of arguing . . . .”108 Edna concedes that “he left on his
    own volition.”109
    Ronald was concerned that Edna would appropriate all of their jointly held
    funds: “[h]e wanted to make sure [] he had his part of the money.” 110 Ronald
    shared this concern with his daughters and withdrew half of the funds in the joint
    account, leaving the remaining half for Edna.111          Edna was concerned,112 but
    103
    Kimberlyn Tr. 505:6–10.
    104
    Edna Tr. 47:8–10; Kimberlyn Tr. 505:11–506:4.
    105
    Edna Tr. 47:8–11, 112:7–10; Kimberlyn Tr. 503–04, 506:10–12; Donna Tr. 600–01,
    634:18–635:10; Ronnie Tr. 965–66.
    106
    Edna Tr. 47:8–11, 111:1–4.
    107
    Edna Tr. 110:8–12, 110:21–22, 111:3–4.
    108
    Kimberlyn Tr. 506:19–507:3; see also Donna Tr. 600:3–9.
    109
    Edna Tr. 112:13.
    110
    Donna Tr. 600–01; see also Edna Tr. 113:18–114:3.
    111
    Donna Tr. 600–01, 636:4–5; see also Edna Tr. 114:2–3.
    112
    Edna Tr. 114:10–12.
    15
    Ronald “wanted to make sure he had access to money she couldn’t get to.” 113
    Upon Ronald’s request, Donna opened a joint account with him at the Dover
    Federal Credit Union (the “DFCU Account”).114 Both Donna and Ronald were
    holders on the DFCU Account, “but the account was for him.” 115 Donna had
    access to the account, but she did not use it.116
    Ronald also made Kimberlyn an authorized user on his credit cards and
    placed her on his insurance.117 On occasion, Kimberlyn and Donna asked their
    father for money to pay for miscellaneous things, which Ronald permitted.118
    Ronald made no other changes to his finances while living with his daughters in
    113
    Donna Tr. 636:4–5.
    114
    Donna Tr. 635:11–636:12.
    115
    Donna Tr. 636:8–10.
    116
    Donna Tr. 636:11–12.
    117
    Edna Tr. 1018:11–13.
    118
    See Edna Tr. 1018:9–15. Edna testified that “while he was staying there, they
    aggressively encouraged him to file for divorce, they aggressively encouraged him to
    change the beneficiary on his life insurance policies, made it well-known that they did
    not like me, that they did not want the marriage to continue.”
    Id. 51:9–15. She
    later
    testified that Ronald “informed me that his daughter Kimberlyn had injected herself
    deeply into our finances. He had made her an authorized user on credit cards. She had
    asked to be put on our insurance, which she was. He said she was asking for money for
    various things such as car repairs and whatnot.”
    Id. 1018:9–15. Kimberlyn’s
    testimony
    conflicts with Edna’s. See Kimberlyn Tr. 507:7–18. The preponderance of the evidence
    shows that Donna and Kimberlyn asked their father to pay for miscellaneous things and
    that he voluntarily allowed them access to his finances, not that they interjected
    themselves into Ronald’s finances or stole his money.
    16
    2012.119 His daughters never asked him to change his insurance beneficiary forms,
    complete a power of attorney, or execute a new will.120
    While Ronald was living with his daughters, they encouraged Ronald to
    divorce Edna.121       But Ronald had already been divorced twice and had “lost
    everything” each time.122 Donna and Kimberlyn were also concerned about their
    father’s age and health and suggested that he seek care.123
    After roughly two months, Ronald decided to return home to Edna.124
    Ronald did not want to experience the financial loss that came with divorce
    again.125 He also did not like losing his independence.126 As he had done with
    Edna, Ronald “just left without saying anything.”127 His daughters returned home
    to discover that he was gone, without any explanation.128 They eventually learned
    119
    See Kimberlyn Tr. 507:7–18.
    120
    Kimberlyn Tr. 507:7–18.
    121
    Edna Tr. 51:9–11.
    122
    Donna Tr. 638:7–639:11.
    123
    Ronnie Tr. 966:22–23, 967:18–968:4. In 2012, Donna and Kimberlyn had reason to
    be concerned about Ronald’s health. He was diagnosed with cancer in 2002 and began
    dialysis shortly after returning to Edna in 2013. See Edna Tr. 12–13.
    124
    Edna Tr. 47:23–24, 50:18–22.
    125
    Donna Tr. 638:7–639:11.
    126
    Cf. Edna Tr. 99:10 (stating that “my husband tended to buck authority”).
    127
    Kimberlyn Tr. 508:2–9; accord Donna Tr. 638:7–11.
    128
    Donna Tr. 638.
    17
    he had returned to Edna.129 Upon his return, Ronald colorfully communicated his
    displeasure with his daughters, as was typical for him.130
    In the midst of these 2012 transitions, Edna filed a petition for a protection
    from abuse order against Donna and Kimberlyn (the “2012 PFA”).131 Edna did so
    because Donna and Kimberlyn had threatened her.132 The 2012 PFA was granted
    against both Donna and Kimberlyn.133 Edna claims that Kimberlyn violated the
    2012 PFA on one occasion when she called Ronald and Edna’s home.134
    After Ronald reunited with Edna, his relationship with his daughters chilled
    again.135 The 2012 PFA strained their relationship as well.136 While Donna did not
    see Ronald, she spoke to him occasionally:             their relationship was “very
    limited.”137 Kimberlyn did not see or speak to her father from 2012 until roughly
    129
    Donna Tr. 638.
    130
    See Ronnie Tr. 966:1–6, 966:21–23, 967:18–968:4; Edna Tr. 1018:15–16. Ronnie
    explained that it was typical for Ronald to speak in vulgar, mean tones, but that those
    sentiments were unfounded at their core. Ronnie Tr. 966:13–23. And Ronald lashed out
    when he felt his family was infringing on his independence. See
    id. 970:19–24. 131
          Edna Tr. 48:24–49:6.
    132
    Edna Tr. 49:1–3.
    133
    Edna Tr. 49:3–6.
    134
    Edna Tr. 49:7–50:3.
    135
    See Kimberlyn Tr. 508:16–509:4.
    136
    See Donna Tr. 640 (“There was a PFA against me. We hadn’t quite reconciled, but
    we weren’t estranged. So I talked to him on the phone, but I would never go to the
    house because I didn’t want to have interactions with her, with Edna.”).
    137
    Donna Tr. 640, 817–19.
    18
    2015.138 Edna, not Ronald, remained the primary reason for Donna and
    Kimberlyn’s strained relationship with Ronald between 2012 and 2015.139 After
    2012, Ronald maintained a good relationship with Ronnie,140 but was angry with
    his daughters.141 Donna and Kimberlyn would not strengthen their relationship
    with Ronald until 2015, after his health began to fail.142
    b. The 2015 Reconciliation
    When Ronnie learned that Ronald only had roughly five to six years to live,
    he suggested to Ronald and Edna that Ronald reconcile with Donna and
    Kimberlyn.143       Ronald wanted his daughters back in his life, and after some
    convincing, Edna was also open to a reconciliation.144           So were Donna and
    Kimberlyn.145        Ronnie arranged a meeting sometime before August 2, 2015.146
    The family discussed the incident and agreed to resolve their differences, and
    Donna and Kimberlyn visited Ronald and Edna more often thereafter. 147 And
    138
    Kimberlyn Tr. 508:16–509:4.
    139
    Kimberlyn Tr. 258:9–260:9, 259:5–9; Donna Tr. 640:18–22.
    140
    See, e.g., Ronnie Tr. 971:1–3.
    141
    See Ronnie Tr. 1002:24–1003:7.
    142
    See Edna Tr. 55:22–56:12.
    143
    Ronnie Tr. 1003:8–10, Edna Tr. 55:22–56:12.
    144
    See Edna Tr. 56:6–12.
    145
    See Donna Tr. 642:9, 643:6–8.
    146
    See Donna Tr. 642:9–12.
    147
    Edna Tr. 57:4–12; Donna Tr. 642.
    19
    eventually Ronald told his daughters the true reason he returned to Edna in 2012:
    “he loved his wife and he didn’t want to die alone,”148 and he “decided that he
    wouldn’t want to lose [everything]” in a divorce.149
    Donna began visiting her father as regularly as her job allowed.150
    Kimberlyn visited her father sporadically until May 2017; Kimberlyn’s visits
    increased to at least once a week after that date.151 From 2015 to May 2017,
    Ronnie visited Ronald almost every week to help Ronald and Edna with various
    choses and tasks around the house.152 While Kimberlyn, Donna, and Edna tried to
    put the past behind them, their relationship remained strained.153
    B.     Ronald And The Military
    In addition to Ronald’s complex relationships with his wife and family, this
    case prominently features Ronald’s complex relationship with the military and how
    that relationship manifested in his burial decisions over the years. Ronald served
    in the United States Army for six years, remaining at the rank of private.154 That
    “was a conscious decision on his part” because “[h]e did not want the
    148
    Donna Tr. 819:11–19.
    149
    Donna Tr. 638:21–639:11.
    150
    Donna Tr. 642:23–643:2.
    151
    Edna Tr. 57:18–22, 58:2–7.
    152
    Edna Tr. 59:1–8.
    153
    See JX 6 at Plaintiffs 000289–000300; Edna Tr. 57:7–8.
    154
    Edna Tr. 97:19–20; Donna Tr. 647.
    20
    responsibility that went with higher rank.”155 He was stationed in Vietnam from
    1965 to 1967, where he witnessed difficult events and suffered two severe
    injuries.156
    Ronald was shot in the elbow and caught a grenade between his legs.157
    After sewing his own leg up, Ronald was hospitalized for eighteen months.158 The
    Army wanted to amputate Ronald’s injured arm, but he refused, even after being
    threatened with court martial.159       He left the military and received a Purple
    Heart.160      Thereafter, Ronald received disability checks from the Veterans
    Administration (“VA”).161
    When he returned home from Vietnam, Ronald was negative about his
    service.162 He was angry at the ineffective leadership that led to his injuries,163 and
    155
    Edna Tr. 97:21–23.
    156
    See Edna Tr. 97:23–98:3, 99:12–24; Donna Tr. 647:21–648:4. Ronald drove tanks.
    Soldiers slept under the tanks, and Ronald saw tank operators drive over them without
    checking if anyone was underneath, with fatal results. Donna Tr. 647:21–648:4. Ronald
    also suffered post-traumatic stress disorder from a combat situation in which he was
    forced to kill a booby-trapped child to save himself and his company. Edna Tr. 99:13–
    18. “He was very angry about that.”
    Id. Ronald “joined
    the Army because it was his
    desire to help children and he never imagined that he would be put in the position to
    actually have to kill one.”
    Id. 99:22–24. 157
          Edna Tr. 97:24–98:3; Donna Tr. 646–47.
    158
    Edna Tr. 98:4–5; Donna Tr. 647:1–8.
    159
    Edna Tr. 98:6–10, 98:18–20.
    160
    Donna Tr. 646–48.
    161
    Edna Tr. 98:18–22.
    162
    Edna Tr. 99:3–5; Kimberlyn Tr. 432:3–15; Donna Tr. 648.
    21
    he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.164 Ronald felt that the VA treated
    him and his fellow soldiers terribly when they returned home, and he was angry
    that there were no resources for veterans coming home from war.165
    At the same time, Ronald was “was absolutely proud of his service to his
    country” and displayed his pride in many ways.166 Ronald always wore a veteran’s
    hat from at least the time he was married to Patricia until his death, and enjoyed
    wearing a hat that read “I’m a Dysfunctional Vietnam Vet.”167 He shared his war
    stories.168 But perhaps most telling was his pride for Donna’s military service.169
    Donna became a licensed practical nurse after graduating from Delcastle’s
    vocational program in 1997 and enlisted in the military in 2001.170 Donna has
    been in the military since that time and has served numerous tours overseas.171
    Donna currently serves as a registered nurse for the VA Hospital in Perry Point,
    163
    Edna Tr. 99:5–11.
    164
    Edna Tr. 99:12–24; see also JX 58 at E.Williams000056.
    165
    Edna Tr. 99:3–5; Kimberlyn Tr. 432:3–15; Donna Tr. 648.
    166
    See Edna Tr. 123:15–18; 125; Donna Tr. 648:95–12; Patricia Tr. 740:14–741:3.
    167
    Edna Tr. 124:18–22.
    168
    Donna Tr. 647:3–4.
    169
    See, e.g., Donna Tr. 649:2–8 (stating she and Ronald had an “unbreakable” bond from
    their military service).
    170
    Donna Tr. 624:9–14, 626:9–12.
    171
    Donna Tr. 623–27.
    22
    Maryland.172 She was recently promoted to the rank of master sergeant.173 She
    received her associate’s degree in nursing in 2016 and is now pursing her
    bachelor’s degree.174
    Watching Donna’s military career flourish ignited Ronald’s deeply held
    pride for his own service and transformed some of his negative thoughts about his
    return home from war.175 When Donna was promoted to the rank of E7 after
    returning home from a tour in Iraq, Ronald attended the ceremony and pinned the
    new rank on her uniform: a special moment between two veterans.176 Ronald was
    extremely proud of Donna’s promotion:
    That is a big thing for us because that is the next step in leadership.
    My father never wanted to be where I am. He was so proud that I was
    able to do what I do, and carry it the way I do. He was proud of that
    because he didn’t want that responsibility. And I was able to take that
    responsibility and run with it.177
    Ronald planned a celebratory trip to Hawaii with Donna and Edna.178 Donna and
    Ronald spent time at Pearl Harbor to honor the deaths of their fellow soldiers.179
    As Donna testified,
    172
    Donna Tr. 623:19–626:1.
    173
    Donna Tr. 623:24–624:2.
    174
    Donna Tr. 623:10–18, 626:13–18
    175
    See Donna Tr. 648–49.
    176
    Donna Tr. 649:2–650:4.
    177
    Donna Tr. 649–50; see also Edna Tr. 97:20–23.
    178
    Donna Tr. 650:5–651:4; JX 46 at Plaintiffs 000302–03.
    23
    [M]e and my father went. . . . It was a moment that we both shared.
    He was a veteran. I am a veteran. It was a once in a chance lifetime
    we are both able to go to Pearl Harbor. And we sat on the ship and we
    tried to both figure out. You know, replay Pearl Harbor as it
    happened in our heads. Just those different moments being able . . .
    strategically to sit down and think of stuff with my father in that
    moment was a proud moment for me and for him.180
    Ronald was proud of Donna and his relationship with her; he shared an
    “unbreakable” bond with her.181
    Through observing Donna’s military career, Ronald’s “grudge against the
    military in general”182 became a more delineated disdain toward the VA Hospital,
    which he felt treated him poorly when he returned home from Vietnam. 183
    Donna’s honorable reception when she returned home, and Donna’s own
    knowledge of the military, helped Ronald better understand his own position:
    179
    Donna Tr. 650:5–651:4; JX 46 at Plaintiffs 000302–03.
    180
    Donna Tr. 650–51; JX 46 at Plaintiffs 000302–03.
    181
    Donna Tr. 649:4, 649:2–8. Donna stated that “[s]o many people on the outside
    looking in would never understand that.”
    Id. 649:11–12. 182
          Edna Tr. 123:9–10.
    183
    Kimberlyn Tr. 432:3–19.
    24
    He wasn’t happy on how he was treated when he came home. Took
    me a long time to get him to understand the difference between the
    VA, veterans cemetery, benefits services. And I work for the VA
    hospital. So I had to get him to understand that. Things have
    changed, and that they are not the same people and policy . . . even
    when I came home from Iraq, he came to my ceremony. It was
    different. They acknowledged us. They treated us with respect and
    dignity that we deserved. He didn’t get that. That what he was angry
    about.184
    With this understanding, Ronald did not harbor negative feelings toward the
    veterans’ benefits he received or veterans’ cemeteries.185            In fact, he always
    maintained that he would like his military service to be recognized in some way at
    his burial.186    By the end of his life, Ronald was a proud veteran whose positive
    feelings about his service were invigorated by Donna’s military achievements.
    Ronald consistently wanted to honor his service at his burial.187
    C.     Ronald’s Failing Health
    In addition to the injuries he sustained in Vietnam, Ronald suffered from
    numerous health issues throughout his life.188          When Edna met him, he had
    184
    Donna Tr. 648:13–649:1. I find Donna’s testimony credible, especially as to Ronald’s
    feelings about the military later in life. I also find Kimberlyn’s testimony consistent with
    Donna’s and credible on this point.
    185
    See Kimberlyn Tr. 432.
    186
    Edna Tr. 97:10–12.
    187
    See Edna Tr. 97:10–12; Kimberlyn Tr. 432; Donna Tr. 648–49.
    188
    See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000052–57. Ronald’s medical records identify roughly
    45 “problems” in his health history.
    25
    hypertension, and shortly after marrying Edna, he had cervical spine fusions.189 In
    2002, he was diagnosed with renal cancer.190 And in 2013, Ronald was diagnosed
    with an aortic aneurysm.191 He also had cardiomyopathy, peripheral vascular
    disease, glaucoma, cataracts, and degenerative disk disease.192
    In 2013, Ronald began dialysis for his renal cancer, beginning with home
    dialysis and then transitioning to a dialysis center; by 2017, Ronald needed
    inpatient dialysis three days a week.193 The treatments required a catheter be
    placed in Ronald’s chest.194 Each treatment lasted hours, and each session fatigued
    and “drain[ed]” him.195
    In March 2017, Ronald was diagnosed with lung cancer; by April, it had
    progressed to stage three.196          Ronald’s doctors explained that even with
    chemotherapy and radiation, there was only a twenty to twenty-five percent chance
    189
    Edna Tr. 12–13.
    190
    Edna Tr. 12:23–13:4; JX 58 at 653, 656.
    191
    JX 58 at 649–650.
    192
    Edna Tr. Tr. 14:4-12.
    193
    Edna Tr. 12:23–13:4, 15:1, 16:7–11.
    194
    Edna Tr. 15–16.
    195
    Edna Tr. 15–16.
    196
    Edna Tr. 15:2–4, 24:15–18; JX 58 at E.Williams000579, E.Williams000591; Masters
    Dep. 33. On April 6, 2017, Dr. Greg Masters, Ronald’s oncologist, discovered that
    Ronald had two separate cancers: renal cell carcinoma and non-small cell lung cancer.
    Masters Dep. 25.
    26
    of a cure.197 But Ronald remained optimistic.198 Ronald pursued an “aggressive”
    approach to his treatment, and began daily radiation therapy.199 Ronald continued
    to receive dialysis.200
    In addition to taking doctor-approved medications, Edna also gave Ronald a
    number of supplements that she ordered online.201 Ronald did not enjoy taking
    these supplements, found them difficult to digest, and complained about them to
    his family.202       His doctors did not approve these supplements:       according to
    Ronald’s medical records, he was taking a number of medications and supplements
    that were not prescribed by his doctors and needed to be approved by his
    nephrologist.203 And Ronald informed his doctors that Edna had “thoughts about
    certain medications,” such as opiates, and made Ronald stop taking them, despite
    being prescribed by his doctors.204
    197
    Edna Tr. 15–16; Covell Dep. 58:1–3.
    198
    Edna Tr. 15–16; Kimberlyn Tr. 455:13–17.
    199
    JX 58 at E.Williams000581, E.Williams000591, E.Williams000893.
    200
    Edna Tr. 16:7–11.
    201
    See, e.g., JX 6 at Plaintiffs 000294.
    202
    See, e.g., JX 6 at Plaintiffs 000294.
    203
    See JX 58 at E.Williams000886; JX 6 at Plaintiffs 000294 (“Apparently, he has voiced
    concerns about his medications to one or all of you kids, be he does not tell the whole
    story. Firstly, at least 80% of what he is taking is prescribed by doctors. Aside from
    those, he is taking four supplements that have anti-metastatic properties. Before I ever
    ordered these from Amazon, I discussed them with him.”).
    204
    JX 58 at E.Williams000463 (internal quotation marks omitted).
    27
    Ronald regularly experienced pain in his chest and shortness of breath.205
    He had difficultly eating and a restricted diet, and he experienced steady weight
    loss.206     He became “quite frail and thin,” requiring physical therapy for
    strengthening.207 Ronald was a high “fall risk,”208 and he eventually fell in his
    marital home and needed first a rolling walker, then a wheelchair.209 Ronald
    needed assistance moving, travelling, going to the bathroom, and with daily
    living.210 At least one person needed to accompany him to medical appointments
    and elsewhere.211 And he came to require constant care and assistance in the
    home.212
    Because he physically struggled to complete basic tasks, others assisted
    Ronald with filling out paperwork.213 As early as March 2017, Edna assisted
    Ronald with completing paperwork.214 Edna testified that she was “in the habit of
    205
    See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Willaims000460, E.Williams000462.
    206
    See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000059, E.Williams000439, E.Williams000447,
    E.Willaims000460.
    207
    JX 58 at E.Williams000462; see also JX 58 at E.Willaims000449, E.Williams000454.
    208
    JX 58 at E.Williams000439, Williams000453, E.Williams000982.
    209
    See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000444, E.Williams000506.
    210
    See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000445, E.Williams000449, E.Williams000981–82.
    211
    See Kimberlyn Tr. 410–11, 414–15.
    212
    See Donna Tr. 846–47.
    213
    See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams00594; Edna Tr. 26:12–27:2.
    214
    JX 58 at E.Williams000594; Edna Tr. 26:12–27:2.
    28
    doing this for [her] husband, first of all, because he was experiencing tremors
    which made it difficult for him to write.         And . . . he was losing manual
    dexterity.”215 When Ronald entered his daughters’ care and as his health worsened
    throughout 2017, Ronald similarly allowed Donna and Kimberlyn to assist in
    completing paperwork.216
    From the time Ronald began developing serious conditions until July 2017,
    Edna was his primary caregiver.217 As Edna explained, even as early as 2002, and
    despite the fact that Ronald was “a very intelligent man,” she attended his doctor’s
    visits and helped explain what the doctors were treating him for and what
    procedures he was receiving.218 While Edna recuperated from a disabling car
    accident in 2014, Ronald assisted her with her daily activities.219 Edna, in turn,
    was there for Ronald during his significant health issues later in life.220
    In the last two years of Ronald’s life, Edna’s care and effort on her
    husband’s behalf increased exponentially.221         As of March 2017, Edna was
    215
    Edna Tr. 26:19–22.
    216
    See Kimberlyn Tr. 428:5–6.
    217
    Edna Tr. 17:16–17; see also JX 58.
    218
    Edna Tr. 17:20–18:14.
    219
    Edna Tr. 55.
    220
    Edna Tr. 28.
    221
    Edna Tr. 18–19.
    29
    devoting nearly all of her time to caring for Ronald.222 She assisted Ronald with
    nearly everything, including getting in and out of a car, dressing, shopping,
    cooking, cleaning, paying the bills, daily blood pressure and temperature readings,
    and communicating with Ronald’s medical professionals.223 As Ronnie testified, it
    was “amazing” to watch Edna care for Ron.224        And Donna “admired” Edna for
    the very good care she provided Ron.225
    While Edna provided admirable care for Ronald, at least after her accident,
    she kept the marital home in deplorable condition that made it very difficult for a
    sick man to live.226 According to his medical records, Ronald expressed concern
    that the condition of the home took a toll on his health: “The patient states that he
    has lost significant weight. He was living with his wife, who he has separated
    from, who was not supportive.            He notes that she is a ‘hoarder’ and the
    environment limited his appetite.”227 Donna described the house as “atrocious:”228
    “It was just always animals, so dogs, cats. . . . Hair on the floor from the dogs.
    222
    Edna Tr. 28.
    223
    Edna Tr. 19, 28–29; Ronnie Tr. 972:8–20.
    224
    Ronnie Tr. 972-73.
    225
    Ronnie Tr. 972.
    226
    See Kimberlyn Tr. 513–20; JX 19.
    227
    JX 58 at E.Williams000460.
    228
    Donna Tr. 662; JX 19.
    30
    Kitchen pretty much was food on the floor, food on the table, dishes in the sink.”229
    Edna was a vociferous online shopper, and papers and packages covered the
    floors.230 The house was so cluttered that Ronald was unable to move about safely
    and without difficulty, and the conditions caused Ronald to fall on multiple
    occasions.231       Eventually, Ronnie began renovating Ronald’s bedroom in
    preparation for in-home dialysis, so Ronald began using the living room as a
    bedroom.232 And although the renovations made the conditions worse, they were
    not the cause.233 Rather, “[t]his is how she lived.”234
    Aside from sometimes eating at his bedside table, Ronald could hardly eat in
    the house.235 Edna did not cook much, and Ronald had a limited appetite and
    preferred to order Chinese food.236       But Edna still bought large quantities of
    groceries that went uneaten and expired.237 These were left throughout the house,
    229
    Donna Tr. 662; JX 19.
    230
    Donna Tr. 663–64; JX 19.
    231
    Donna Tr. 663:2–7, 664; JX 19.
    232
    See, e.g., Kimberlyn Tr. 519:1–5.
    233
    Donna Tr. 663–64, 665–66.
    234
    Donna Tr. 663:15–664:9.
    235
    Donna Tr. 667.
    236
    Donna Tr. 667:11–20, 668:8–11; Kimberlyn Tr. 518:5–8.
    237
    Kimberlyn Tr. 517:21–518:8.
    31
    in the back of her car, and in multiple refrigerators and freezers filled to
    capacity.238 Edna refused to throw away rotten and expired food.239
    Donna and Kimberlyn knew that Ronald’s “safety was an issue” at home.240
    They tried to help Edna clean the house and throw away expired food, but Edna
    refused and became angry, accusing them of stealing and throwing things away.241
    Edna was in denial.242
    After watching Edna remove expired food from their trash can, Ronald
    became frustrated.243 So he asked Donna to take photos of the house, saying
    “sarcastically” that “you never know, we may need them.” 244 Donna did so, and
    those photos were submitted at trial.245        They are consistent with Donna and
    Kimberlyn’s testimony: the house was cluttered, the floors were covered in debris,
    packages were piled up, and the rooms were so crowded that it would have been
    238
    Kimberlyn Tr. 516:17–517:18, 517:21–518:4.
    239
    Donna Tr. 663, 664–65.
    240
    Donna Tr. 665–66.
    241
    Donna Tr. 663–64, 665–66.
    242
    Donna Tr. 665–66.
    243
    Donna Tr. 665–66.
    244
    Donna Tr. 664–65.
    245
    See JX 19; Donna Tr. 666:2–5 (“You know, so in my mind I laughed because I was
    just like, because I did exactly what he asked me to do. Granted, he was right. We
    needed them.”).
    32
    difficult for anyone to navigate.246 And the freezer was crammed with food left in
    grocery bags.247
    The responsibility of taking care of Ronald was “overwhelming.”248 And
    Ronald was frustrated and irritable at the loss of his independence.249 Donna began
    to fear Edna was suffering from caregiver burnout.250          As Donna explained,
    caregiver burnout can happen easily for primary caretakers that have little relief:
    “she seemed to me she was wearing down. And it showed. Just in interactions, in
    conversations, things of that case. . . . She was annoyed a lot. She didn’t get much
    sleep. If my father needed something, she was the one that had to do it.”251
    Edna’s burnout manifested in her criticizing and chastising Ronald.252 She
    became verbally and physically abusive.253 Edna spoke to and treated Ronald in a
    “manner which was almost belittling.”254 She criticized him for having accidents
    246
    See JX 19 at Plaintiffs 000225–30, 000232.
    247
    See JX 19 at Plaintiffs 000227.
    248
    Donna Tr. 670.
    249
    Edna Tr. 100:19–24; Ronnie Tr. 970:19–21.
    250
    Donna Tr. 670:7–671:6.
    251
    Donna Tr. 670–71.
    252
    See, e.g., Donna Tr. 652–53.
    253
    See, e.g., Donna Tr. 652–53; Patricia Tr. 736:8–13; see also JX 63 (noting “physical
    and emotional abuse”).
    254
    Donna Tr. 652–53.
    33
    that he could not control.255 And “if he had an accident in his clothes or something
    like that, she would make him stay that way until she felt like changing him. Then
    she was really rough changing him.             He was scared of her.”256   And Edna
    controlled other aspects of Ronald’s life, including his finances. 257 For example,
    Edna did not give Ronald cash and questioned him when he had it. 258 In response,
    Ronald hid his change from the grocery store so that he could avoid a barrage of
    questions from Edna.259 Ronald informed Donna and Kimberlyn that Edna was
    treating him this way.260
    By April 2017, Donna and Kimberlyn were accompanying Ronald and Edna
    to his medical appointments.261 Ronald also had a visiting nurse.262 But Donna felt
    that Edna needed further assistance to care for Ronald.263 In May 2017, Donna
    took leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) in order to help Edna
    care for Ronald.264 Ronald “did not like the fact that people had to take care of
    255
    Donna Tr. 652–53.
    256
    Patricia Tr. 736:8–13. To be clear, Edna never hit Ronald.
    Id. 257 Kimberlyn
    Tr. 514:1–14.
    258
    Kimberlyn Tr. 514:1–14.
    259
    Kimberlyn Tr. 514:7–10.
    260
    See Donna Tr. 736; Kimberlyn Tr, 514:1–4.
    261
    See JX 58 at E.Williams000590.
    262
    See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000536.
    263
    See Donna Tr. 655:15–24, 656–57.
    264
    Donna Tr. 655:15–24, 656–57, 661:11–23, 670–71; JX 58 at E.Williams000545.
    34
    him.”265 At first it was difficult for him to accept his daughter Donna’s assistance
    with his physical needs.266 But eventually, because of her nursing skills, Ronald
    allowed Donna to help him.267 Kimberlyn also started spending more time with
    Ronald.268
    On July 24, 2017, Edna took Ronald to the emergency room because he was
    dehydrated.269       The next day, Edna informed Donna that Ronald “could not
    manage the step up into the house.”270 When Edna pulled him up, they both fell.271
    Edna told Donna that she was “not going to be able to get him to the doctor and to
    dialysis by [her]self anymore.”272 Edna needed Donna’s help, as did Ronald.273
    D.     Ronald Moves Out For The Last Time
    In the summer of 2017, Ronald began complaining to his daughters about
    certain aspects of his healthcare.274 Ronald was unhappy with the number of
    265
    Donna Tr. 654–55.
    266
    Donna Tr. 654–55.
    267
    Donna Tr. 654–55.
    268
    Kimberlyn Tr. 264:1–18.
    269
    Edna Tr. 150:1–6.
    270
    JX 3 at Plaintiffs 000285.
    271
    JX 3 at Plaintiffs 000285.
    272
    JX 3 at Plaintiffs 000285.
    273
    JX 3 at Plaintiffs 000285–86; Edna Tr. 151:11–152:2.
    274
    See Donna Tr. 659.
    35
    medications he had to take.275 His primary gripe concerned the non-prescribed
    supplements that Edna ordered for him online and instructed him to take.276 They
    often made him feel ill and vomit.277 Ronald told Edna that “he had in issue with
    taking supplements,” resulting in a “disagreement.”278 He felt like Edna was not
    listening to him.279
    Ronald also complained to his daughters about Edna’s abuse and the
    condition of his home.280 He told them Edna “would chastise him” and “talk to
    him like he was a child.”281 Ronald said this “[d]idn’t make him feel like a man”
    and that “he didn’t like to be talked to like that.”282 Because Ronald was steadily
    losing his independence and because “[h]e was a prideful man,” Edna’s words
    were especially hurtful.283
    In July 2017, even in the midst of their collective efforts to care for Ronald,
    tensions built between Edna and Ronald and consequently between Edna and his
    daughters. Edna felt that Donna and Kimberlyn were “out to get [her],” and was
    275
    Donna Tr. 659:6–8.
    276
    Donna Tr. 659:8–12.
    277
    Kimberlyn Tr. 513:19–24.
    278
    Donna Tr. 600:22–661:3.
    279
    Kimberlyn Tr. 513:14–15.
    280
    Kimberlyn Tr. 514:3–24; Donna Tr. 653–54.
    281
    Kimberlyn Tr. 514:3–4; accord Donna Tr. 653–54.
    282
    Donna Tr. 653–64.
    283
    Donna Tr. 654–55.
    36
    concerned about what others thought about the state of her marriage.284 Edna also
    pointed out that Ronald would “act differently” when his children were present,
    standing up for himself. 285 Donna explained that all she wanted was for her father
    “to be at peace.”286
    Donna and Edna wanted to avoid a repeat of 2012.287 They knew that
    Ronald did not have much time left.288 On July 26, Ronald called a family meeting
    for Donna and Kimberlyn to air out their issues with Edna.289 The conversation
    began calmly, but became more heated, and Edna, Kimberlyn, and Donna began to
    shout at one another.290 Kimberlyn was angry and defended Ronald after Edna
    insulted Ronald:
    She made a comment to my father about how do you think it makes
    me feel when I have to clean your sh*tty *ss. Of course I stepped up
    and said, “That is what you’re suppose[d] to do. You are his wife.”291
    284
    See JX 6 at Plaintiffs 000289; Edna Tr. 152:13–20; Donna Tr. 675:1–17.
    285
    JX 6 at Plaintiffs 000295; Donna Tr. 676:13–677:3 (“[M]y dad was happy to see us
    when we were there. I also agree when we were there, my personal opinion is that my
    father knew that we had his best interest in mind. . . . I feel like, you know, he did act
    differently. I mean, here it says, ‘I don’t know if it’s a macho thing’ but I don’t know,
    you know, maybe he felt better that we were there.”).
    286
    JX 6 at Plaintiffs 000289.
    287
    JX 6; Edna Tr. 153:10–154:6.
    288
    Donna Tr. 675.
    289
    Donna Tr. 681.
    290
    Edna Tr. 267:1–10; 265:11–21.
    291
    Kimberlyn Tr. 521–22; accord Donna Tr. 676–77.
    37
    In the heat of the moment, Kimberlyn yelled that Ronald was dying, and he began
    to cry.292 The meeting ended once everyone had calmed down; Donna and Kim
    offered to spend more time with their father to give Edna a break.293 Donna and
    Kimberlyn left Edna and Ronald’s home under the belief that they had resolved
    their problems.294
    Edna was angry that Ronald did not defend her in front of his daughters and
    shared those feelings with him.295 Ronald concluded “[i]t was clear that she had
    lied and never had any intentions of trying to move forward in working things out
    with [his] daughters.”296 He “sided” with his daughters.297
    While Ronald had previously considered marital counseling, by this point
    Ronald was very frustrated with Edna and concluded that their relationship could
    not be saved. 298 He decided to leave Edna for the second and final time on July
    30.299
    292
    Edna Tr. 67:13–18.
    293
    Donna Tr. 682:12–18; Kimberlyn Tr. 522:21–523:4.
    294
    See Kimberlyn Tr. 265:14–21.
    295
    Edna Tr. 196:20–197:1; JX 63 (“I was exhausted because all night I was unable to get
    any rest due to her blaming me that I did not defend her the night before and I took my
    daughter’s side.”).
    296
    JX 63.
    297
    JX 63.
    298
    See Kimberlyn Tr. 523–24, Ronnie Tr. 1001:10–13, 1002:12–13.
    299
    See, e.g., Kimberlyn Tr. 523–24.
    38
    That day, Ronald asked Kimberlyn to come to his house.300 Kimberlyn
    arrived with her Lawrence, Ashly, and her friend Chris.301 Ronald told Kimberlyn
    that he wanted to leave and go to a nursing home: “I don’t want to be here with
    her no more. I am sick of her stuff. I want to go. I want out of here.” 302
    Kimberlyn called Donna and informed her that Ronald wanted Donna to
    come to his house because he wanted to go to a nursing home. 303 The news
    shocked Donna.304 Donna arrived at the house.305 Ronald said that “[h]e was tired
    of [Edna’s] sh*t” and that “[h]e was getting tired of her chastising him, talking to
    him like a child.”306 Edna was not happy that Ronald wanted to leave, and tried to
    insert herself into his conversation with Donna and Kimberlyn. 307 She was having
    “little rages of fits” and making “sly, slick remarks to Ronald.”308
    Donna concluded that both Ronald and Edna were tired and needed a break
    from one another, so she suggested that Ronald stay with her for the night.309
    300
    Kimberlyn Tr. 523–24.
    301
    Kimberlyn Tr. 524:9–15.
    302
    Kimberlyn Tr. 523–25.
    303
    Kimberlyn Tr. 523–26; Donna Tr. 684.
    304
    Donna Tr. 685:3–7.
    305
    Donna Tr. 686.
    306
    Donna Tr. 686.
    307
    Kimberlyn Tr. 529.
    308
    Kimberlyn Tr. 529.
    309
    Donna Tr. 687–88.
    39
    Ronald agreed and reiterated that he just “want[ed] to leave.”310 Edna “reluctantly
    agreed.”311 They began gathering Ronald’s belongings for the night, and tensions
    flared.312 When they asked if Edna could help get Ronald’s clothing together,
    Edna remarked that “he was a grown *ss man” and that “[h]e can get his own
    clothes together.”313 Right before they left, Edna told Ronald,“[I]f you die before
    you come back home, I will never forgive you.”314
    Everyone got in their respective cars, and Ashly was prepared to drive
    Ronald’s vehicle.315 Several weeks earlier, Ronald and Edna had agreed that Ashly
    could use his vehicle while hers was being repaired.316 Edna stopped them and
    threatened that, if Ashly took the vehicle, she would cancel its insurance or report
    it stolen.317 In response, Kimberlyn physically threatened Edna as Lawrence held
    Kimberlyn back.318 Donna broke up the fight, and they left, leaving Ronald’s
    310
    Donna Tr. 687–88.
    311
    Donna Tr. 687.
    312
    Donna Tr. 688.
    313
    Donna Tr. 688.
    314
    Kimberlyn Tr. 529.
    315
    Kimberlyn Tr. 532:7–9.
    316
    Kimberlyn Tr. 531:14–532:4.
    317
    Kimberlyn Tr. 532: 12–14, 532:23–533:7; Edna Tr. 168:15–18.
    318
    Donna Tr. 689.
    40
    vehicle behind.319 Kimberlyn drove Ronald to Donna’s house.320 Ronald said that
    he never wanted to go back to his marital home.321
    After leaving, Ronald wanted to withdraw money from an ATM so that he
    could buy some Chinese food, so Kimberlyn took him to the ATM.322 Ronald’s
    card was declined.323 Ronald concluded Edna had done something to prevent him
    from getting his money; in fact, in the days that followed, Ronald learned Edna had
    reported his card as stolen.324 Ronald grew concerned that Edna would take further
    measures to keep him from his assets.325 Ronald contacted the bank and informed
    the bank that Edna was not authorized to speak for him and “let them know what
    [his] intentions [were].”326
    Ronald believed that Edna was a bad caregiver, and he was displeased with
    their relationship.327 After he left, Edna repeatedly called Ronald, questioning him
    319
    Kimberlyn Tr. 533:19–22; Donna Tr. 689.
    320
    Kimberlyn Tr. 536:12–21.
    321
    Kimberlyn Tr. 536:12–21.
    322
    Kimberlyn Tr. 534:3–20; Donna Tr. 690:13–24.
    323
    Kimberlyn Tr. 534:24–535:5.
    324
    Edna Tr. 114:13–115:1, 168:21–23, 171:17–20; Kimberlyn Tr. 535:12–17, 596:3–5;
    Donna Tr. 743:2–744:6.
    325
    Kimberlyn Tr. 596:21–597:1.
    326
    JX 63.
    327
    Kimberlyn Tr. 540.
    41
    about when he would return home.328 Edna’s sister sent Ronald harassing text
    messages.329 The “non-stop” calls and messages upset Ronald.330 He was angry
    about the incident with his vehicle: “after the incident with the truck, he said he
    was done with Edna. He did not want to come back.”331 And he was also angry
    that Edna had reported his card stolen.332        Ronald decided to leave Edna for
    good.333 “He was mad. He said he was tired of this and he . . . he didn’t want to
    go through this again. He said he didn’t want to be with her anymore.”334
    On July 31, Ronald went back to his home to collect the remainder of his
    belongings, including his medications.335 Lawrence, Chris, and Kimberlyn went
    with him.336 Concerned about the altercation between Kimberlyn and Edna the
    328
    Donna Tr. 691:23–693:7.
    329
    JX 21 (“That’s how I’ll remember you. I don’t know that I will ever see you again,
    because you have made a tragic mistake leaving your life in the hands of those girls, and
    because you are a moron about you [sic] meds you’ll be dead sooner than you should
    have been. So smoke up, have a blast and most importantly stop those annoying meds
    and doctor appointments. Hope the girls enjoy your last days wiping your . . . .”); see
    also Kimberlyn Tr. 602:16–604:7; Donna Tr. 694:1–8.
    330
    Donna Tr. 693–94, 695.
    331
    Kimberlyn Tr. 536.
    332
    Donna Tr. 693:20–23 (“I can tell you that he was upset one, because this is at this
    point they found out that his car[d] was reported stolen. I do believe he was irritated
    about that.”).
    333
    See Kimberlyn Tr. 536–39.
    334
    Kimberlyn Tr. 536–39.
    335
    Donna Tr. 692; Kimberlyn Tr. 536–39.
    336
    Kimberlyn Tr. 536:24–537:3.
    42
    previous day, Kimberlyn and Ronald agreed that Kimberlyn should arrange a
    police escort.337 An officer met them at the house.338
    Ronald and Chris went inside to remove his belongings.339 Edna tried to
    speak to Ronald, but he did not want to interact with her, and the officer told her
    not to speak to him.340 Nonetheless, Edna pressed that Ronald was taken against
    his will.341 The police did not react to Edna’s allegation and continued to identify
    items to be retrieved for Ronald.342 Ronald could not find his walker, glasses, and
    a number of medications.343 Edna claimed that she did not know where his walker
    was, and his glasses later materialized in Edna’s vehicle.344 Edna hid these items,
    consistent with her destruction of Ronald’s valuables in the past.345
    The first few weeks caring for Ronald were very difficult for Donna, but she
    did what she had to for Ronald’s well-being.346 Because Ronald had only planned
    on staying one day, Donna and Kimberlyn were not prepared for his extended
    337
    Kimberlyn Tr. 537:6–18.
    338
    Kimberlyn Tr. 537:19–24; 539:1–4.
    339
    Kimberlyn Tr. 537:19–24; 539:1–4.
    340
    See JX 63; Edna Tr. 80.
    341
    Edna Tr. 162:5–163:3.
    342
    Edna Tr. 162:5–163:3.
    343
    See JX 63; see also Kimberlyn Tr. 536–39; Donna Tr. 694–95.
    344
    See JX 63; see also Kimberlyn Tr. 536–39; Donna Tr. 694–95.
    345
    See JX 63. Edna denies his accusation. See Edna Tr. 197:22–198:8.
    346
    Donna Tr. 699–701.
    43
    stay.347 They spent the first week with him trying to organize all of his various
    appointments and needs.348 They devoted themselves to Ronald, and planned their
    lives around their new responsibility.349 Just as Edna had done when Ronald was
    living with her, Donna and Kimberlyn tended to Ronald’s every need.350 They
    helped him around the house and either took him to his medical appointments or
    arranged paratransit. 351
    E.     Edna’s Continued Harassment After Ronald Left
    After July 31, Ronald never returned to the marital house. And but for one
    meeting, Edna never saw or spoke to Ronald again.               Ronald moved in with
    Donna.352 He made it clear to his daughters and others that he did not want to be
    with Edna and that he did not want her to be involved in the last months of his
    life.353 For example, Ronald’s medical records demonstrate that he considered
    himself “separated” from Edna and that she was no longer his primary caregiver.354
    347
    Donna Tr. 698:18–699:8.
    348
    Donna Tr. 698:18–699:8.
    349
    See JX 44; Donna Tr. 698:7–20.
    350
    Cf. Ronnie Tr. 972:8–9.
    351
    Donna Tr. 701.
    352
    See, e.g., Patricia Tr. 736–737.
    353
    See, e.g., Kimberlyn Tr. 536–39; Patricia Tr. 736:1–13.
    354
    See JX 58 at E.Williams000438, E.Williams000945.
    44
    And he told Patricia that “he didn’t want to be with [Edna]” because “she was very
    abusive to him.”355
    But Edna continued to be “a thorn in his side.”356 In addition to sending
    harassing messages, she reported his ATM card stolen so he was unable to
    withdraw funds from the joint account.357 When Ronald moved in with Donna, he
    directed the Office of Pensions to send his documents to Donna’s Newark
    address.358 But on September 9, 2017, Edna completed an Office of Pensions
    change of address form to list Edna’s Smyrna’s address.359 If accepted, this form
    would have diverted Ronald’s mail from the Office of Pensions, potentially
    including his pension and Death Benefit checks and other benefit information,
    back to Edna.360 The signature appearing on the document is not Ronald’s.361
    Edna testified that she did not sign and submit this form, even though she
    agreed that the signature at the bottom was not Ronald’s and that Ronald was
    355
    Patricia Tr. 736:1–13.
    356
    Patricia Tr. 700:7.
    357
    See Edna Tr. 114:13–115:1, 168:21–23, 171:17–20; Kimberlyn Tr. 535:12–17, 596:3–
    5; Donna Tr. 743:2–744:6; see also JX 63.
    358
    Edna Tr. 120:9–11; Donna Tr. 707:2–14.
    359
    JX 24.
    360
    JX 24.
    361
    Donna Tr. 707:2–7.
    45
    living with Donna at that time.362 Donna likewise did not recognize the signature
    as Ronald’s and stated that the first time she saw this document was a few days
    before trial.363 I find that Edna completed and forged Ronald’s signature on that
    document to divert his state benefits, and related information, back to her.364
    And Edna turned to the police, Adult Protective Services (“APS”), and
    Family Court to continue to harass Ronald. She filed another PFA against Donna
    and Kimberlyn based on the July 30 incident (“Edna’s 2017 PFA”) but did not
    appear at court to pursue it, and the Court denied the PFA.365 On August 3, Edna
    called the police, who reported to Donna’s home to perform a welfare check. 366
    Ronald told the officer “that [he] was here on [his] own free will and did not want
    to return, that [he] was just fine.”367 The police left.368 And on August 16, Edna
    362
    Edna Tr. 117:10–120:6; Ronnie Tr. 982:2–983:10.
    363
    Donna Tr. 706:19–707:7.
    364
    See JX 24.
    365
    See JX 63; Edna Tr. 177:9–17; Kimberlyn Tr. 416, 417, 418, 541:24–542:7; Donna
    Tr. 726:7–727:7. Donna and Kimberlyn were of the understanding that Edna was trying
    to obtain a PFA against Ron, as well as Kimberlyn and Donna. Kimberlyn Tr. 416, 417.
    But, her PFA was only sought by Edna against Kimberlyn and Donna. Edna Tr. 177:9–
    11; Kimberlyn Tr. 418. And when asked why she did not file a second PFA to protect
    her from Donna and Kimberlyn, Edna replied, “Quite honestly, my husband was dying
    and was away from me. I had bigger fish to fry.” Edna Tr. 178:3–7.
    366
    See JX 63; Donna Tr. 723:5–724:17.
    367
    JX 63; see also Donna Tr. 723:5–724:17.
    368
    Donna Tr. 723:6–724:17.
    46
    filed a complaint with APS, claiming Ronald was “coerced in leaving.”369 Edna
    had APS contact Donna that day to inquire about Ronald’s condition and Donna’s
    home environment.370           The next day, Edna sent APS to check on Ronald at
    dialysis.371 Ronald “signed papers stating that he did not want their services. He
    explained to them that he was where he wanted to be. He didn’t want to have
    anything to do with Edna. He didn’t want to talk to her. He just wanted to be left
    alone.”372 APS reported to Edna that Ronald was fine.373
    On August 12, Edna confronted Ronald at his dialysis center.374 According
    to Ronald, “she showed up at my dialysis center bad mouthing me and trying to
    convince me that my daughters were trying to put me in a nursing home,” and she
    was “getting me all upset.”375 Edna was asked to leave.376 This was the last time
    Ronald spoke with or saw Edna.377
    369
    Edna Tr. 207:20–24, 208:19–23, 209:5; Kimberlyn Tr. 550:3–7.
    370
    JX 63.
    371
    Edna Tr. 207:20–208:5.
    372
    Kimberlyn Tr. 550:15–19.
    373
    Edna Tr. 208:13–18.
    374
    Edna Tr. 184:11–20; Donna Tr. 729:5–16.
    375
    JX 63.
    376
    Edna Tr. 184:18–20, 185:6–13; Donna Tr. 730:11–24.
    377
    Edna Tr. 187:7–12, 187:20–22.
    47
    Ronald became adamant that he would not return to her.378 He reported
    Edna’s harassment to the police.379 An officer came to Donna’s home to speak to
    Ronald, but the officer told Ronald there was not much he could do.380 If Ronald
    was “adamant about the harassment, he would have to file a PFA against her.”381
    Indeed, Ronald filed an emergency ex parte PFA against Edna on August 18,
    2017 (“Ronald’s PFA”).382 The court granted Ronald’s PFA that day, to last until
    the hearing scheduled for August 31.383 A Delaware Family Court employee
    recommended that Ronald prepare a written statement to attach to his petition.384
    Accordingly, Ronald dictated a statement that Donna typed for him. 385 She read
    the statement back to Ronald, and he agreed that it said exactly what he wanted it
    to say, and signed it.386
    378
    Donna Tr. 697:4-7.
    379
    Donna Tr. 728:1–3, 728:11–23.
    380
    Donna Tr. 728:17–21.
    381
    Donna Tr. 728:22–23.
    382
    See JX 59; see also JX 18; JX 27; JX 63; Kimberlyn Tr. 540:12–14; Donna Tr. 739:8–
    18.
    383
    JX 63; Donna Tr. 758:20–759:16.
    384
    Donna Tr. 548:21–549:9.
    385
    See JX 63; Donna Tr. 543:8–24. At the top of the statement in Ronald’s handwriting
    appears “I Ronald R. Williams do authorize my daughter to type all the information.” JX
    63.
    386
    Kimberlyn Tr. 543:1–19; 548:8–16; Donna Tr. 759:20–760:15; JX 63. The signature
    on the statement matches Ronald’s signature and was notarized by the clerk of the Family
    Court. See Tr. 191:18–195:2.
    48
    In the statement, Ronald described Edna’s harassment and verbal abuse and
    his desire to leave his wife and die in peace.387 Ronald stated that “[s]he has been
    nonstop trying to get me to come home.”388 He recounted Edna’s and her sister’s
    harassing messages, Edna’s frivolous PFA, Edna’s efforts to call the police on
    Ronald’s daughters, APS appearing to check on him at dialysis, and Edna’s efforts
    to stop Ronald from accessing his money.389 Ronald described his humiliation:
    I am 70 years old and this stress she is causing is detrimental to my
    health. Over the past year off and on I have dealt with all types
    personal and emotional abuse. She has talked to me like I was a child
    and chastised me for having accidents and belittled me for having
    accidents and not being able to do things that she felt maybe I should
    be able to do. She has constantly reminded me and my daughters that
    she has to clean me up all the time. Making me feel depressed and
    ashamed. I would like to charge her with elderly abuse because of my
    living conditions being unsafe, cluttered, kitchen unsanitary, cat and
    dog hair everywhere.390
    He concluded, “I would very much prefer for her to stop trying to contact me,
    constantly harassing my daughters and accept things for the way they are and leave
    us alone.”391
    On August 31, Ronald, Kim and Donna appeared for Ronald’s PFA hearing,
    but it was continued to September 15, because Edna had not been served.392 Edna
    387
    JX 63.
    388
    JX 63.
    389
    JX 63.
    390
    JX 63.
    391
    JX 63.
    49
    did not appear at the hearing on September 15.393 At that hearing, Kimberlyn and
    Donna sat in the gallery, watching Ronald speak with the Court for approximately
    ten minutes.394 The Court granted a one-year PFA in favor of Ronald and against
    Edna.395
    The PFA did not deter Edna from contacting Ronald. Around September 21,
    Edna sent Ronald a letter at the dialysis center.396 The letter recognizes that
    Ronald chose to leave Edna.397 The letter was not received until after Ronald’s
    death.398
    Edna also continued calling APS.399 In October, about two days before
    Ronald passed away, she caused APS to return to Donna’s home to investigate his
    declining health.400 Donna did not speak with APS, but only led them to Ronald’s
    392
    JX 59; Donna Tr. 7621:24–762:19.
    393
    Kimberlyn Tr. 547:17–548:7; Donna Tr. 763:2–766:3.
    394
    Kimberlyn Tr. 547:17–548:7; Donna Tr. 763:2–766:3.
    395
    JX 27.
    396
    See JX 22; Edna Tr. 171:21–23, 172:6–10.
    397
    See JX 22 at Plaintiffs 000051 (“You left under the pretense of going to Donna’s for
    an overnight visit.”), 000054 (“I feel as though for you to do this to me, you could never
    had loved me in any way, shape, or form.”), 000058 (“And since you choose to leave me
    in the dark, how was I supposed to know you expected any thing different?”), 000059 (“I
    will have no good memories of you because they will all be tarnished by what you have
    done.”).
    398
    Donna Tr. 766:20–22, 767:8–13.
    399
    See Edna Tr. 209:23–210:1; Kimberlyn Tr. 549:13–21; Donna Tr. 766:15–24.
    400
    Edna Tr. 224:6–225:6; Kimberlyn Tr. 550:3–7; Donna Tr. 767:14–768:10.
    50
    bedroom: “When they went down there, they looked at my father, turned around
    and looked at me and said, I’m so sorry, and left.”401 APS told Edna that Ronald
    was receiving care.402
    Ronald did not mention or consider divorcing Edna after he left her in July
    2017.403 Unlike 2012, he was not concerned about losing material things and was
    resolved that Edna, as his wife, would receive their houses, cars, and other
    property.404 As discussed below, Ronald’s primary financial concerns were his
    upcoming funeral expenses and making changes to ensure his daughters would not
    bear the burden of those costs. Otherwise, Ronald’s chief concern was living the
    last days of his life free from the stress caused by his relationship with Edna: “I
    just want peace. I just want to die in peace.”405
    401
    Donna Tr. 768:4–15.
    402
    Edna Tr. 224:24–225:1.
    403
    Donna Tr. 639:14–24.
    404
    Donna Tr. 639:14–24, 912:2–8. Ronald did prepare a will that would have left his
    estate to his daughters. See JX 26. He unsuccessfully attempted to execute that will
    once, but never attempted to again. I believe that Ronald was at peace with Edna
    receiving his estate as his wife and that he was primarily focused on making changes to
    his MetLife Policy and Death Benefit.
    405
    Donna Tr. 639:14–24.
    51
    F.     Ronald’s Mental Health
    According to Edna, Ronald could not make decisions for himself after he left
    her on July 30.406 Edna points to Ronald’s depression and a purported bout of
    hallucinations due to prescribed opiate medications.            While he sometimes
    “denie[d] a depressed mood,”407 Ronald suffered from depression.408 He also had
    anxiety from his physical complications, as well as his “complicated family
    dynamics and strained relationships.”409 His doctors noted that his feelings were
    “appropriate for the circumstances.”410 Ronald generally did not have difficulty
    speaking,411 and had no difficulty communicating.412 He was able to fully recount
    his medical history for doctors,413 even though sometimes “he had a difficult time
    remembering all the information that he needed to provide.”414            Ronald was
    406
    Edna Tr. 166:12–24.
    407
    JX 58 at E.Williams000460; see also E.Williams000462.
    408
    See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000438–39.
    409
    JX 58 at E.Williams000447; see also JX 58 at E.Williams000444, E.Williams000467.
    410
    JX 58 at E.Williams000467.
    411
    See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000509 (noting he had “no difficulty with speech”),
    E.Williams00586 (noting Ronald could “verbalize” his concerns).
    412
    See JX 58 at E.Williams000461.
    413
    JX 58 at E.Williams000584–87.
    414
    Edna Tr. 26:23–24.
    52
    prescribed a litany of medications, including antidepressants, one antipsychotic,
    and one antianxiety medication.415
    Despite these complications, Ronald was otherwise in good mental
    condition.416 His medical records from 2013 through 2017 repeatedly note that
    Ronald was “alert, oriented, cooperative, and appropriately conversant,”417 that he
    had “normal attention span and concentration,”418 and that his “mood and affect are
    appropriate for [the] circumstance.”419          Ronald was able to comprehend his
    treatment, understand communications with his doctors, and make decisions for
    himself.420 The records explicitly state that Ronald was “oriented” and was not
    “forgetful” or “disoriented.”421 Edna admits that throughout 2016, Ronald was
    415
    See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000590; Kaye Tr. 329:23–330:4.
    416
    See Donna Tr. 658 (noting Ronald was “was able to speak for himself,” “was alert,”
    and “was oriented,” and that “he ordered his own food, “had general conversation at the
    table” and that “[t]here was . . . nothing that showed that he was not of sound body and
    mind”); see also Kimberlyn Tr. 552–53, 605.
    417
    E.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000467,              E.Williams000529,   E.Williams000536,
    E.Williams000555, E.Williams000564.
    418
    E.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000462.
    419
    E.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000529.
    420
    See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000444–46, E.Williams000551, E.Williams000584–87;
    Donna Tr. 702.
    421
    JX 58 at E.Williams000542.
    53
    lucid.422 And Edna admits that none of Ronald’s doctors indicated that he was
    incapable of making his own decisions before July 31, 2017.423
    In fact, Ronald made all of his own medical decisions. Donna “did not need
    [] to hold his hands on every encounter:”424 “He engaged in the conversation. He
    understood.       He acknowledged that he understood.         If he didn’t understand
    something particular, he would ask a question. If the doctor would clarify or I
    would try to help him understand exactly what it is they were saying.”425 He
    sometimes had difficulty understanding finances and other affairs, and his
    daughters assisted him.426 And as discussed, as a result of his physical limits, they
    helped him fill out paperwork. But the decisions were Ronald’s.427
    Between July 20 and October 8, 2017, Kimberlyn saw her father at least six
    days per week.428 In that time, he was never forgetful, confused about what he
    wanted, confused about what he owned, or confused about what he wanted after he
    422
    Edna Tr. 135:3.
    423
    Edna Tr. 137:9–16.
    424
    Donna Tr. 702.
    425
    Donna Tr. 703.
    426
    Donna Tr. 703.
    427
    Donna Tr. 921:11–14 (“My father. We read everything. He gave us his decisions
    based off of his knowledge, not ours -- or his thoughts. I mean, we just filled it out for
    him.”).
    428
    Kimberlyn Tr. 552–53, 605.
    54
    passed; he did not suffer from delusions or hallucinations.429 And he even saw a
    psychologist “[j]ust so he could express how he felt what he wanted. So he
    wouldn’t be taken that he wasn’t in his right state of mind. So that he was talking
    to a professional who he knew was advocating for him if his state of mind ever
    became in question.”430
    After Ron’s lung cancer diagnosis, he was prescribed oxycodone and
    OxyContin for pain relief.431 Edna and her expert, Dr. Neil Kaye, made much of
    the fact that these drugs could have interfered with Ronald’s cognition.432 But
    Ronald’s medical records demonstrate that his opiate medications cognitively
    impaired him on only one occasion, in May 2017.433 On May 1, Edna contacted
    Ronald’s doctor to report that OxyContin caused Ronald to have “delirium.” 434
    The doctors recommended that Ronald permanently stop OxyContin and continue
    taking only oxycodone.435           On May 9, Ronald visited the doctor again,
    429
    Kimberlyn Tr. 552–53, 605.
    430
    Kimberlyn Tr. 552:23–553:4.
    431
    See, e.g., Edna Tr. 32; JX 58 at Williams000570.
    432
    See JX 48.
    433
    See JX 58 at E.Williams000570.
    434
    JX 58 at E.Williams000570. Medical records from May 2, 2017 state that Ronald’s
    “wife noticed mental status changes after starting OxyContin with visual and auditory
    hallucinations after starting oxycodone. She called yesterday and was instructed to stop
    the oxycodone. His mental status has improved.” JX 58 at E.Williams000563.
    435
    JX 58 at E.Williams000565.
    55
    accompanied by his daughters.436 Records from that visit state that after stopping
    OxyContin, Ronald’s hallucinations had “resolved.”437          Ronald was “alert,
    oriented, cooperative, and appropriately conversant.”438
    Ronald did not experience any “mental status changes” or “hallucinations”
    after May 2017. In fact, on August 21 and September 21, his doctors noted that
    they assessed his “opioid risk” and that “[t]he patient score was 0 with low risk
    category.”439 Ronald told his doctors that “he [was] not sure why he was take[n]
    off of [OxyContin],” and speculated that it was because “his (ex?) wife had
    ‘thoughts’ about certain medications and may have had him stop taking this.”440
    For his part, Ronald “state[d] that he thinks he did have a good response to the
    Oxycontin.”441 That day, Ronald was “[a]lert and cooperative,” had “normal mood
    and affect,” and had “normal attention span and concentration.”442 As a result,
    Ronald’s doctors felt that it was safe to prescribe OxyContin at a lower dosage.443
    436
    JX 58 at E.Williams000554, E.Williams000556.
    437
    JX 58 at E.Williams000554.
    438
    JX 58 at E.Williams000555.
    439
    JX 58 at E.Williams000445, E.Williams000461.
    440
    JX 58 at E.Williams000463.
    441
    JX 58 at E.Williams000463.
    442
    JX 58 at E.Williams000462.
    443
    JX 58 at E.Williams000463.
    56
    Ronald and Edna were aware that they could and should contact his doctors
    again if the hallucinations resumed, but they did not.444 Neither Ronald nor his
    daughter reported that his medications were impairing his cognitive abilities, and
    his medical records after August 21 demonstrate that Ronald was “alert” and
    “answers questions appropriately,”445 was having an “appropriate[]” emotional
    response to his circumstances,”446 was able to understand and comprehend the
    doctor’s directions,447 was able to communicate his thoughts and concerns,448 and
    was making decisions for himself.449
    Dr. Kaye submitted an expert report and testified at trial on the potential
    effects that Ronald’s medications, physical condition, and life circumstances could
    have on his mental state.450 Dr. Kaye opined that Ronald was a “highly susceptible
    individual” and reliant upon others for all of his needs.451 Much of Dr. Kaye’s
    opinion is premised on the fact that Ronald needed assistance completing daily
    444
    See JX 58 at E.Williams000565.
    445
    JX 58 at E.Williams000447.
    446
    JX 58 at E.Williams000447.
    447
    See JX 58 at E.Williams000447, E.Williams000445.
    448
    See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000445–46.
    449
    See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000445–46.
    450
    See JX 48. Dr. Kaye is a board-certified psychiatrist, specializing in the brain,
    behavior, and emotion. Kaye Tr. 299.
    451
    JX 48.
    57
    activities and attending medical appointments.452 Dr. Kaye also posited, as Edna
    had told Ronald’s doctors, that his opiate medications caused hallucinations and
    made Ronald psychotic.453
    Dr. Kaye’s opinion and testimony are not credible or supported. Ronald’s
    medical records demonstrate that Ronald was in good mental health, considering
    his physical conditions.      He was alert, able to understand his conditions and
    treatments, and able to make decisions. While he was heavily reliant on others for
    his physical needs, his cognition was his own. His doctors did not express concern
    that his mental state was declining, and they did not express that his depression or
    anxiety were so crippling that Ronald could not think for himself. Dr. Kaye opined
    that Ronald’s medications could impair his judgment and cause hallucinations.454
    Ronald’s doctors agreed that his medications and conditions could affect his
    mental status.455 But the record does not support a finding that Ronald actually
    452
    JX 48.
    453
    Kaye Tr. 311.
    454
    JX 48.
    455
    Dr. Covell noted that oxycodone or any narcotic could affect Ronald’s mental status.
    Covell Dep. at 50, 52. He also noted that Ronald’s conditions could cause altered
    thinking, including metastatic lung cancer, particularly if it had metastasized to the brain;
    end stage renal disease that required hemodialysis; cardiac issues; COPD; hypoxia, if his
    oxygen was low; chronic anemia; and sleep apnea. He never saw Ronald display these
    symptoms.
    Id. at 72.
    And Dr. Masters said that use of opiates or narcotics could have
    potentially serious side effects such as delirium or delusions. Masters Dep. at 64. Dr.
    Masters also stressed that chemotherapy and radiation could make people less aware
    mentally.
    Id. at 76.
    58
    suffered any cognitive impairment from his medications from July 2017 onward.456
    The speculation by Edna and Dr. Kaye does not offer a substantial basis to believe
    that Ronald’s mental state was materially different or impaired between the time he
    executed the power of attorney in Edna’s favor on July 24 and the end of
    September 2017.457
    Edna’s testimony as to Ronald’s decision-making capabilities is not credible,
    and is inconsistent with her own actions. Edna and Ronald discussed his final
    wishes during June and July 2017.458 Edna prepared a power of attorney, and on
    July 24, Ronald read and signed it.459 That document appointed Edna as his
    primary agent and Ronnie as the contingent agent.460 According to Edna, Ronald
    was interested, engaged, and competent to sign that power of attorney. 461 She was
    not with Ronald when he signed the document, and she did not produce the
    document in this case.462 But Edna does not question the validity of the power of
    456
    See generally JX 58 (noting time and again that Ronald was alert, aware, and able to
    make decisions for himself).
    457
    See Sloan v. Segal (Sloan II), 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *5 (Del. 2010) (TABLE).
    458
    Edna Tr. 140:8–15.
    459
    Edna Tr. 142:7–22.
    460
    Edna Tr. 143:12–144:8.
    461
    Edna Tr. 182:4–15.
    462
    Edna Tr. 143:12–144:8.
    59
    attorney executed in her favor.463 Thus, as recently as July 24, Edna believed that
    Ronald had the capacity and mental faculties to execute binding legal
    documents.464
    And after Ronald executed the power of attorney in Edna’s favor, Edna and
    Ronald decided to meet with Edna’s attorney, Jason Powell, Esquire, to draft estate
    planning documents.465 Edna planned for Ronald to meet with Mr. Powell to sign
    the remaining estate planning documents on August 2, with the understanding that
    he would have the capacity to make his own decisions.466 Because Ronald left
    Edna, this meeting never happened.467
    Edna has offered no evidence that Ronald became incapable of making his
    own decisions after July 24.            And her testimony is inconsistent with
    contemporaneous documents and testimony showing Ronald continued to make his
    own decisions, including medical decisions and the decision to leave Edna.468
    Edna also lacks personal knowledge of Ronald’s decision-making capabilities after
    July 30, as she did not have any meaningful contact with him after that time. I
    463
    Edna Tr. 182:4–15.
    464
    See Edna Tr. 137:9–16.
    465
    Edna Tr. 141:7–142:9.
    466
    Edna Tr. 140:8–12, 142:14–19, 146:5–14.
    467
    Edna Tr. 142:14–19, 146:5–14.
    468
    See, e.g., JX 22; JX 58.
    60
    conclude Ronald retained his full mental faculties and could make his own
    decisions until the first week of October 2017, shortly before his death.
    But Ronald’s physical health continued to decline.469 Contrary to Edna’s
    allegations, Kimberlyn and Donna were not to blame for Ronald’s worsening
    condition, and they did their best to care for him in the last months of his life.470
    While Ronald’s physical health declined steadily, his mental health did not decline
    until the days before he died in October 2017.471
    G.     Ronald’s Decision To Remove Edna From His Finances And
    As A Beneficiary
    Once Ronald left Edna, he also took measures to protect his finances. As in
    2012, Ronald was concerned that Edna would drain their joint bank account.472 He
    was concerned about his checks, his VA checks, his Social Security check, and his
    pension.473 Accordingly, he took steps to ensure she would not infringe on his
    469
    See generally JX 58.
    470
    See generally JX 58 (demonstrating that Ronald’s daughters were his primary
    caregivers after July 30, 2017).
    471
    Donna Tr. 703.
    472
    Donna Tr. 601. Ronald even voiced his concerns to Patricia, saying that “every time
    he leaves [Edna] she ends up taking money out of the account, puts it into her account.”
    Patricia Tr. 743.
    473
    See Kimberlyn 596–97 (“He was concerned about his checks, his VA checks, his SSI
    check. And his pension, that he wouldn't be able to have access to that money.”), Donna
    Tr. 637–38 (“At this point he had stated he had checks that were getting ready to come in.
    He needed to make sure he had access to his money. He did not want to have what
    happened happen in 2012 where money was taken out of the account or, you know,
    issues with the bank account.”), 696.
    61
    funds, including “changing the accounts, having her taken off as authorized user[,
    and] [m]aking sure that his checks went into an account he had access to.”474
    Donna and Kimberlyn helped get Ronald’s finances in order.475
    Ronald knew that certain checks were due to be deposited into his account,
    so he acted quickly.476 With Donna’s assistance, on August 1, Ronald reopened
    the DFCU Account that he had opened with Donna in 2012, and directed his
    checks to be deposited there.477 Like Edna, Donna and Kimberlyn needed access
    to Ronald’s bank accounts and credit cards to help him pay for things that he
    wanted to buy because of his physical limitations.478 Ronald gave his daughters
    access to his bank accounts so they could go to the ATM for him. 479 And with
    Ronald’s approval, Donna and Kimberlyn used his credit cards. 480 They never
    used his credit card or bank account without his permission.481 In addition to using
    those accounts to pay for Ronald’s needs, Ronald also permitted his daughters to
    474
    Donna Tr. 601.
    475
    See, e.g., Donna Tr. 637–38, 696.
    476
    Donna Tr. 638–39.
    477
    Donna Tr. 636:6–638:6, 697:2–24, 704; see also JX 8; JX 9.
    478
    Kimberlyn Tr. 598:13–22.
    479
    Donna Tr. 703–04.
    480
    See Kimberlyn Tr. 599:3–20; see also JX 53.
    481
    Kimberlyn Tr. 599:21–23.
    62
    pay some of their own expenses as compensation for his care.482 In the same vein,
    Kimberlyn’s husband, Lawrence, occasionally asked Ronald for money, and
    Ronald gave it to him.483
    Donna and Kimberlyn called financial institutions for Ronald, at Ronald’s
    instruction and in his presence, in order to arrange to have Edna taken off his
    accounts.484 Ronald spoke for himself and authorized his daughters to speak to on
    his behalf.485 Edna had similarly communicated on Ronald’s behalf in the past.486
    Donald and Kimberlyn also helped Ronald use a computer to find phone numbers
    and other information.487
    Edna makes much of the fact that Ronald allowed his daughters to access his
    finances, and claims they took his money. But she admitted that upon moving in
    with Donna and Kimberlyn, he would have continued to consume the same things
    482
    Kimberlyn Tr. 599:3–20.
    483
    Lawrence Tr. 872:9–14, 883:5–11.
    484
    See Donna Tr. 703–04 (“He wanted to talk to the bank, he could talk to the bank. Did
    we call the bank for him? We would make phone calls to them. At times I would make
    phone calls to his brother, hand him the phone. There were some things that we had to do
    for him, but it didn’t mean that he didn’t understand what was going on.”).
    485
    Donna Tr. 703–04; see also JX 43.
    486
    Cf. Edna Tr. 169:2–4, 241:7–8; JX 58 (demonstrating that Edna would contact doctors
    and complete forms on Ronald’s behalf).
    487
    Donna Tr. 703–04 (“He couldn’t look up phone numbers, or he didn’t have access to
    look up phone numbers because I don’t have a phone book in my house. So a lot of
    phone numbers that we had to look up were on the internet. We did those things for him,
    finances wise.”).
    63
    that he did while living with her.488 She could not quantify the money Donna and
    Kimberlyn allegedly took, and she had no idea how Ronald spent his money while
    living with Donna and Kimberlyn.489 I do not find Edna’s testimony that Donna
    and Kimberlyn stole from Ronald or coerced him into giving them access to his
    finances to be credible.
    Ronald also removed Edna as the beneficiary on his accounts, replacing her
    with Donna and Kimberlyn. On August 2, 2017, Kimberlyn took Ronald to the
    state pension office so that he could route his pension checks to the DFCU
    Account, rather than their joint account.490 Ronald also executed a change of
    beneficiary form to remove Edna as the beneficiary of his Death Benefit, instead
    naming Donna and Kimberlyn.491 Ronald made this change on his own volition.492
    And although Ronald executed the change of beneficiary form in Donna and
    Kimberlyn’s favor, the $7,000 Death Benefit was always intended to pay for
    Ronald’s funeral expenses and was used for that purpose.493 Donna and Kimberlyn
    still owe the funeral home approximately $5,000.494
    488
    Edna Tr. 232:21–233:11.
    489
    Edna Tr. 230:20–23, 233:14–19.
    490
    Kimberlyn Tr. 558:19–559:17, 560:4–22; JX 11.
    491
    Kimberlyn Tr. 558:19–559:17, 560:23–562:19; JX 10.
    492
    Kimberlyn Tr. 558:19–559:17, 560:23–562:19; Donna Tr. 705:16–21; JX 10.
    493
    Kimberlyn Tr. 557:7–558:8, 558:19–559:17, 560:23–562:19, 595–99; JX 32.
    494
    Kimberlyn Tr. 562:20–563:1; JX 47.
    64
    Ronald also decided to name Donna and Kimberlyn as the beneficiaries of
    the MetLife Policy.495 At Ronald’s direction, Kimberlyn called MetLife in early
    August.496 Kimberlyn and Ronald called on speakerphone so that Ronald could
    hear and speak if necessary.497 Initially, a MetLife employee spoke to Ronald and
    asked for permission for Kimberlyn to speak; he gave it.498 Kimberlyn informed
    MetLife that Ronald wished to change the beneficiaries under his policy.499
    MetLife informed them that they would mail Ronald an application form.500
    Ronald received the form and filled it out with Kimberlyn.501 They attempted to
    mail it back, but MetLife never received the application.502
    In September, Ronald knew that he was going to die and began to get his
    affairs in order, including how he and his daughters would pay for his funeral.503
    He did not want Donna and Kimberlyn to be burdened with the expenses, and was
    495
    Kimberlyn Tr. 563:12–17 (“[B]ecause he changed the beneficiaries to the pension,
    burial pension, he wanted to change the beneficiaries to the MetLife policy.”); see also
    id. 264:15–265:10; Patricia
    Tr. 741:9–23.
    496
    Kimberlyn Tr. 565:11–24.
    497
    Kimberlyn Tr. 565:11–24.
    498
    Kimberlyn Tr. 566:1–3.
    499
    Kimberlyn Tr. 565:11–24.
    500
    Kimberlyn Tr. 566:3–6.
    501
    Kimberlyn Tr. 566:7–22.
    502
    Kimberlyn Tr. 566:7–22.
    503
    Kimberlyn Tr. 565:8–13, 567:1–7, 569:8–24 (“He wanted to go ahead and take care of
    his funeral arrangements, then get his coffin, all that stuff together before he died. He
    didn’t want me and my sister to be bothered with that burden.”).
    65
    adamant that these funds go to Donna and Kimberlyn to help them pay for his
    funeral, rather than to Edna.504 They had not yet received a funeral estimate, but
    had an appointment scheduled.505 So on September 12, he asked Kimberlyn to call
    MetLife to request, on his behalf, that $20,000 of his policy be cashed out so that
    Donna and Kimberlyn could cover his funeral expenses.506 As was their standard
    practice, the call was on speakerphone, Ronald was present for the entirety of the
    call,507 and the MetLife representative asked for Ronald’s permission to allow them
    to discuss his policy with Kimberlyn.508 He gave it.509 Kimberlyn then assisted
    Ronald with completing the necessary paperwork.510             MetLife approved the
    advancement request, but Ronald and his daughters never received the check.511
    Kimberlyn and Ronald received a new application and a new change of
    beneficiary form from MetLife.512 Kimberlyn helped Ronald complete the forms,
    504
    See Kimberlyn Tr. 567:3–7.
    505
    Kimberlyn Tr. 453-455.
    506
    Kimberlyn Tr. 453–455, 565:8–13, 567:1–7, 569:8–24; see also JX 12.
    507
    Kimberlyn Tr. 565:16–20, 567:8–568:2; see also Lawrence Tr. 877:3–9 (“He would
    use the phone . . . They’re just assisting”); JX 43.
    508
    Kimberlyn Tr. 566:2–6, 567:8–568:2.
    509
    Kimberlyn Tr. 565:3–13, 567:8–568:2; JX 43.
    510
    JX 65.
    511
    Donna Tr. 775:7–14.
    512
    Kimberlyn Tr. 568:3–569:3.
    66
    and he signed them on September 13.513 They sent them back to MetLife.514 On
    September 13, Donna and Kimberlyn became the beneficiaries of the MetLife
    Policy.515 Ronald wanted to remove Edna as the beneficiary of the MetLife Policy,
    and all of his daughters’ actions were done at Ronald’s request.516 The MetLife
    Policy has not been paid out to Donna and Kimberlyn, and the entire $100,000
    remains in MetLife’s possession.517
    H.   Ronald’s Decision To Excise Edna From His Burial Plans
    By August, Ronald’s health was worsening and by mid-September 2017, his
    doctors informed him that there was nothing else they could do; Ronald was going
    to die.518 Ronald took the news about as well as anyone possibly could and
    decided it was time to get his affairs in order.519 Donna and Kimberlyn purchased
    a CD with forms for wills, powers of attorney, and last wishes documents.520
    Donna and Kimberlyn assisted Ronald with executing a number of these
    documents to fulfill his intention of removing Edna from his personal and medical
    513
    JX 66.
    514
    Kimberlyn Tr. 568:3–569:3, 445.
    515
    Kimberlyn Tr. 439; JX 25; JX 66.
    516
    Kimberlyn Tr. 570:1–18; Lawrence Tr. 886:11–887:14; Donna Tr. 777:2–778:21.
    517
    D.I. 132 at 62:20–63:9.
    518
    Donna Tr. 769:21–772:17; see also JX 44 at 259.
    519
    Kimberlyn Tr. 441:5–13; Donna Tr. 772:18–773:5.
    520
    Donna Tr. 773:7–12.
    67
    affairs in his last days. They “always had a conversation with [Ronald] about
    every document that he had to sign, or that involved him.”521
    On September 22, at the Dover Federal Credit Union, Ronald executed the
    durable power of attorney form in favor of Kimberlyn and Donna.522 A Dover
    Federal Credit Union employee witnessed and notarized the power of attorney, and
    swore that she asked whether Ronald knew what he was signing and that “while
    elderly and in a wheelchair, [Ronald] seemed fine.”523 When Ronald signed the
    power of attorney, he had his full mental capacity.524 He executed this document
    because “he wanted to take Edna out of the equation of making medical decisions
    for him.”525
    Ronald also completed a will form with Donna and Kimberlyn’s
    assistance.526         Ronald asked Donna and Kimberlyn to fill out the will and
    instructed them on what to write.527 Under this will, Donna and Kimberlyn would
    have received Ronald’s estate, but they never asked for that nor pursued that;
    521
    Donna Tr. 617.
    522
    JX 28.
    523
    JX 42 ¶¶ 6, 8.
    524
    See Donna Tr. 787:21–22.
    525
    Kimberlyn Tr. 555:15–24.
    526
    JX 26.
    527
    Kimberlyn Tr. 577:2–578:2.
    68
    rather, they were comfortable with Edna receiving Ronald’s estate.528 Ronald tried
    to execute the will at the Dover Federal Credit Union, but was instructed that he
    would need an attorney to do so.529 Ronald died without executing the will.530
    Within the first days of living with Donna, Kimberlyn asked Ronald whether
    he still wanted to be buried with Edna.531 He said no, and that he did not want to
    be anywhere near her.532 He told Donna the same and was adamant that he did not
    want to be buried at Gracelawn with Edna.533
    Three documents submitted at trial reflect Ronald’s wishes for his funeral
    and burial: the application to be buried at the Veterans Cemetery, 534 a handwritten
    “Statement of Wishes,”535 and two versions of a “Five Wishes Document.”536
    Because he was a veteran, Ronald was entitled to be buried at the Veterans
    Cemetery; after leaving Edna, he decided he wanted to be buried there, and
    528
    Kimberlyn Tr. 578:3–580:12; Donna Tr. 780:21–785:16; JX 26.
    529
    Kimberlyn Tr. 436–38.
    530
    Kimberlyn Tr. 436–38.
    531
    Kimberlyn Tr. 587:9–12.
    532
    Kimberlyn Tr. 587:9–12 (“He said he didn’t want her to be buried over top of him.
    He didn’t want her to be nowhere near him.”).
    533
    Kimberlyn Tr. 587:14–16.
    534
    JX 14.
    535
    JX 23.
    536
    JX 13; JX 57.
    69
    discussed his desires with Lawrence and Vincent, among others.537 Donna and
    Kimberlyn assisted him with researching and completing the burial application.538
    On the day Ronald applied for burial at the Veterans Cemetery, Patricia asked him
    why he no longer wanted to be buried at Gracelawn.539 Ronald responded that he
    “did not want that fat B laying on top of him” and that he wanted to be buried at
    the Veterans Cemetery.540 He did not want Edna at his funeral and “didn’t want
    her to be involved or see anything.”541 Donna and Kimberlyn were aware that,
    even if Ronald chose to be buried in the Veterans Cemetery to escape Edna, Edna
    could choose to be buried at the Veterans Cemetery upon her passing. 542 On
    August 10, 2017, Ronald received notice that his application to be buried at the
    Veterans Cemetery had been accepted.543
    537
    Kimberlyn Tr. 587:19–23, 588:1–5; see also Lawrence Tr. 872:2–8; Vincent Tr.
    938:12–15, 954:7–10, 955:8–14.
    538
    Kimberlyn Tr. 588.
    539
    Patricia Tr. 737:19–738:2, 738:3–13 (“He said, I went over to the VA to submit -- put
    an application in for my plot at the veteran’s cemetery. I said oh, I thought you had a
    plot. I thought you was going to are buried in Grace Lawn. He said that he did not want
    that fat B laying on top of him. Q. Those were his exact words? A. No. He did not want
    the fat b*tch laying on top of him. Q. So what was your understanding of where he
    wanted to be buried? A. He wanted to be buried at the VA cemetery.”).
    540
    Patricia Tr. 737:19–738:2, 738:3–13.
    541
    Donna Tr. 738:10–23.
    542
    Donna Tr. 622.
    543
    JX 14.
    70
    Ronald also prepared a handwritten Statement of Wishes document on
    September 18.544       Before completing this document, Donna and Kimberlyn
    discussed it with him and ensured that he knew what he was signing. 545 While
    Kimberlyn’s handwriting appears on the Statement of Wishes, Ronald wrote the
    statement himself.546 The Statement of Wishes evidences that Ronald did not want
    Edna to have control of his body:
    Funeral arrangements to be handled by my daughters Kimberlyn Ray
    and Donna Williams[.] Under no circumstances do [] I want my body
    to be claimed or handled by my wife Edna A. Williams[.] I do not
    want my wife Edna A. Williams to have any dealings with funeral
    arrangements or to attend my funeral services or burial.547
    While the Statement of Wishes does not mention the Veterans Cemetery, it is
    consistent with testimony supporting the finding that Ronald did not want Edna
    involved in his burial and that he wished for Donna and Kimberlyn to have the
    responsibility of handling his burial and remains.548
    Finally, Christiana Care provided Ronald with a document titled “Five
    Wishes” (the “Five Wishes Document”), which Ronald completed and signed.549
    544
    JX 23.
    545
    Kimberlyn Tr. 573–575.
    546
    JX 23; Kimberlyn Tr. 575–77.
    547
    JX 23.
    548
    Kimberlyn Tr. 493:2–7; Donna Tr. 768:16–769:8, 774:2–10.          The Statement of
    Wishes is also consistent with the information appearing in JX 13.
    549
    Kimberlyn Tr. 616:8–13.
    71
    Two copies of the Five Wishes Document have been provided: Joint Exhibit 13
    (“JX 13”) and Joint Exhibit 57 (“JX 57”). JX 13 was produced by Donna and
    Kimberlyn, and JX 57 was produced by Ronald’s doctor together with Ronald’s
    medical records.550
    Ronald signed both JX 13 and JX 57, and both were signed by Vincent and
    Chris as purported witnesses.551 Vincent testified that he did not watch Ronald
    sign the document, and Ronald’s signature was already on the document when it
    was presented to him.552 JX 13 and JX 57 bear different dates: JX 13 is dated
    August 3, and JX 57 is dated August 13.553 Donna testified that Ronald signed
    both documents on August 3 at Donna’s house.554 Vincent also testified that he
    signed both documents that day.555
    JX 13 contained the same contents as JX 57 when both were signed.556 Both
    name Donna as primary health care agent, and Kimberlyn and Ashly as secondary
    agents; provide that Ronald did not want to be an organ donor; and evidence
    550
    JX 13; JX 57.
    551
    JX 13; JX 57.
    552
    Vincent Tr. 940.
    553
    Compare JX 13, with JX 57.
    554
    Donna Tr. 714:1–715:13; Vincent Tr. 930:5–931:9, 933:15–934:4.
    555
    Vincent Tr. 936:2–937:14.
    556
    Kimberlyn Tr. 490–491.
    72
    Ronald’s choices as to life support treatment and comfort care in different
    contexts.557
    But JX 13 and JX 57 bear one major substantive difference: page 9 of JX 57
    is blank, while pages 6 and 9 of JX 13 contain additional terms in Donna’s
    handwriting.558 Page 9 of JX 13 states:
    Funeral arrangements to be handled by my daughters, Kimberlyn Ray
    and Donna Williams. Under no circumstances do I want my body to
    be claimed by my wife Edna Williams nor do I want my body to be
    claimed by my wife Edna Williams nor do I want Edna Williams to
    attend my funeral services or to make any decisions on my behalf.
    She is to have no dealings with my arrangements.559
    It also notes that Ronald wanted to be buried in the Veterans Cemetery. 560 JX 57
    does not include this language.561 As of August 3, when both versions were
    signed, both versions’ burial wishes section was blank because Ronald had yet to
    be accepted to the Veterans Cemetery.562 Donna added this information to JX 13
    557
    JX 13; JX 57.
    558
    Compare JX 13 at Plaintiffs 000189, Plaintiffs 000192, with JX 57 at
    E.Williams000475, E.Williams000478.
    559
    JX 13 at Plaintiffs 0000192.
    560
    JX 13 at Plaintiffs 0000192.
    561
    Compare JX 13, with JX 57.
    562
    Donna Tr. 711:9–19, 712:5–713:18
    73
    after Ronald received approval to be buried in the Veterans Cemetery, but
    testimony varied as to when that was.563
    I find that Ronald signed both JX 13 and JX 57 on August 3. The August 13
    date on JX 57 is inaccurate, and Vincent and Chris did not actually witness Ronald
    signing it. And although the information appearing in JX 13 is consistent with
    Ronald’s wishes,564 I find Donna added the information to the JX 13 sometime
    between August 10 and October 8, after Ronald had been accepted to the Veterans
    Cemetery and after Ronald had already signed JX 13.565                   She added this
    information to JX 13 consistent with Ronald’s intent.566 Further, while JX 57 was
    produced from a reliable source, it is not properly dated or witnessed.
    Accordingly, JX 13 and JX 57 have not been authenticated under Delaware
    Rule of Evidence 901, and so they are not admissible.567 However, I also find that
    JX 13 and JX 57 were completed by Donna, Kimberlyn, and Ronald, and signed by
    563
    Kimberlyn Tr. 482–487, 572:2–14; see JX 13 at Plaintiffs 000189,               Plaintiffs
    0000192.
    564
    Donna Tr. 719:21–721:22; Lawrence Tr. 872:2–8; Vincent Tr. 938:1–5, 942:5–9,
    943:9–18, 954:7–10, 955:8–14; see also JX 23 (Statement of Wishes).
    565
    Kimberlyn Tr. 572:2–12; JX 13.
    566
    Kimberlyn Tr. 617.
    567
    D.R.E. 901. Donna and Kimberlyn have failed to “produce evidence sufficient to
    support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is,” even in the face of the
    low burden to do so. Inconsistent witness testimony, as well as the documents
    themselves, preclude the conclusion that these are legally valid and binding documents.
    See Hardy v. Hardy, 
    2014 WL 3736331
    , at *14 & n.114 (Del. Ch. July 29, 2014).
    74
    Vincent and Chris, with no intention of committing fraud or deception.568 All
    believed that their actions effectuated Ronald’s wishes.569
    Edna contends that Ronald never wanted to be buried at the Veterans
    Cemetery.570 She points to his difficulty with the VA and to his acceptance of
    being buried at Gracelawn while they were together. Ronald might have wanted to
    be buried at Gracelawn as far as Edna knows, but Edna does not have personal
    knowledge of Ronald’s wishes after he left her on July 30. Even if he originally
    planned on being buried at Gracelawn, Ronald was capable of changing his mind,
    and Edna would have had no way knowing if he did.571 I am unconvinced by
    Ronnie and Tiffine’s testimony on this issue for the same reasons.
    The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that after leaving Edna,
    Ronald decided he wanted to be buried in the Veterans Cemetery and not in his
    marital plot at Gracelawn. As explained, Ronald’s antipathy towards the VA was
    more nuanced than Edna contends and diminished over time, and even Edna
    568
    See Kimberlyn Tr. 617 (“I didn’t alter any documents. What we did was we added in
    where he wanted to be burial -- where he wanted to be buried, and just other pertinent
    information. So that is not altering any documents. My father was well aware of us
    putting that information in because that document was in our care. So we wanted to
    make sure we had it documented where he wanted to be.”); see also Kimberlyn Tr.
    495:2–6; Donna Tr. 716:17–719:12, 722:4–723:4, 918:6–16, 920:19–921:14. While
    Vincent and Chris did not properly witness the documents, they signed them nonetheless.
    569
    Kimberlyn Tr. 495:2–6; Donna Tr. 716:17–719:12, 722:4–723:4, 918:6–16, 920:19–
    921:14.
    570
    Edna Tr. 123:4–5.
    571
    Edna Tr. 127:5–20.
    75
    understood Ronald wanted military honors at his funeral. Ronald’s break from
    Edna was complete—geographically, emotionally, and financially—and his desire
    to be buried elsewhere is consistent with that break. While the Five Wishes
    Document (JX 13 and JX 57) suffers from authentication problems, the Veterans
    Cemetery application, the Statement of Wishes, and testimony from those who
    were with Ronald as he made his break from Edna support a finding that Ronald
    wanted to be buried in the Veterans Cemetery without interference from Edna.572
    I.     Ronald’s Last Days
    Ronald began palliative care and decided to enter hospice care in September
    2017.573 Ronald’s physical condition worsened until his death in October 2017.574
    During the first week of October 2017, Ronald took a turn for the worse. In
    addition to his failing physical health, Ronald’s mental faculties began to
    deteriorate.575 Ronald had the good fortune of being surrounded by most of his
    572
    Ronald’s medical records also support this conclusion: “The patient has . . . nam[ed]
    his daughters Donna and Kimberly as his surrogate decision makers. This is particularly
    important as the patient is separated, but not divorced, from his wife. He is adamant that
    his wife, Edna, is not to be involved in his medical care, his decision making, or his care
    after death.” JX 58 at E.Williams0000445.
    573
    See JX 58 at E.Williams000579; Donna Tr.798:4–6.
    574
    Donna Tr. 800:7–24.
    575
    Kimberlyn Tr. 408:23–409:1 (stating Ronald “was in his right state of mind all the
    way up until three days before he passed away”); Donna Tr. 629:17–19 (noting Ronald
    lost his ability to understand in the few days before her passed).
    76
    family, but Ronnie refused to see his father.576 Rather, Ronnie stated, “[h]e made
    his bed. He can lay in it.”577
    On October 8, Ronald passed away.578 When she learned the news, Edna
    called the police to report a “suspicious death”579 and accused Donna and
    Kimberlyn of murdering Ronald.580 The police did not investigate.581 At trial,
    Edna and Ronnie still maintain the unsubstantiated belief that it is possible that
    Donna and Kimberlyn kidnapped and murdered Ronald, despite all of the evidence
    to the contrary, including Ronald’s death certificate.582
    Ronald was transported to Evans Funeral Home. However, Ronald was
    unable to be buried because of Edna’s interference with the burial plans.583 At that
    time, Donna and Kimberlyn filed for a temporary restraining order, submitting
    with it JX 13 and the Statement of Wishes. Chancellor Bouchard granted the
    576
    See Patricia Tr. 742; see also Ronnie Tr. 1003.
    577
    E.g., Donna Tr. 629:14.
    578
    Kimberlyn Tr. 584:15.
    579
    Edna Tr. 225:7–226:2
    580
    Kimberlyn Tr. 586:6–10 (“We, right before they were about to take my father’s body
    out, New Castle County Police showed up. Apparently they were called because Edna
    accused me and my sister of murdering my father, or my father died of a suspicious
    death.”).
    581
    Edna Tr. 226:10–12.
    582
    JX 32 (identifying cardiomyopathy as cause of death); Edna 225:7–227:14; Ronnie Tr.
    1003; Patricia Tr. 742. Edna even entertained the possibility of bringing a wrongful
    death action against Donna and Kim. Edna Tr. 228:18–23.
    583
    See generally D.I. 100.
    77
    order, giving Donna and Kimberlyn the authority to dispose of Ronald’s remains
    and bury him at the Veterans Cemetery as he wished, subject to exhumation if they
    did not prevail on the merits.584
    When the court issued its ruling, out of respect for their father’s wife, Donna
    and Kimberlyn informed Edna that she could attend the funeral, even though doing
    so deviated from Ronald’s wishes.585 Edna attended, but Ronnie did not.586 In
    accordance with this Court’s order, Ronald was buried in the Veterans
    Cemetery.587 And as Ronald wished, his service to in the United States Army was
    properly memorialized with two honor guards, the playing of taps, and the
    presentation of a flag to Donna and Kimberlyn.588
    II.      ANALYSIS
    I now turn to the parties’ affirmative claims and defenses. Donna and
    Kimberlyn assert only one claim, seeking a declaratory judgment that they had
    authority to dispose of Ronald’s remains and that he shall remain in the Veterans
    584
    D.I. 100 at 29:19–30:12.
    585
    See Kimberlyn 496–97, 589. Edna caused a scene at the funeral, rendering the day
    very difficult for Ronald’s family. Donna Tr. 803:16–23 (“A. She got up on the stand at
    the funeral, and read a letter. I can’t give you specifics. I can tell you it was a total
    character assassination to the whole entire church. Q. What do you mean by that? A. It
    was a letter to my father, but it was just some of the stuff she said was directed towards
    me and my sister. It was just bad things.”); see also JX 56 (Facebook posts).
    586
    Ronnie Tr. 1003 (“Why would I go to a funeral that I had nothing to do with?”).
    587
    Kimberlyn Tr. 589; Donna Tr. 651–52.
    588
    Donna Tr. 651–52.
    78
    Cemetery. In response, Edna raises the defense of unclean hands. And she
    affirmatively brings four claims that I address below: undue influence, tortious
    interference with inheritance, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.589
    Edna’s claims and defenses are premised on the unsupported contention that
    Donna and Kimberlyn used their position as Ronald’s caretakers to subjugate his
    will and loot his assets in a scheme to spite Edna. But the preponderance of the
    evidence tells a different story, and nothing suggests that Donna and Kimberlyn
    capitalized on their father’s misfortune for their own gain. As a result, Edna’s
    claims and defenses concurrently unravel. Donna and Kimberlyn prevail on all
    claims, and the parties shall bear their respective costs and fees.
    A.     Edna Has Failed To Demonstrate Ronald Was Unduly
    Influenced.
    Edna claims that Ronald was unduly influenced by Donna and Kimberlyn
    and, as a result, executed several documents relating to his burial arrangements and
    removing Edna as the primary beneficiary on his Death Benefit and MetLife
    Policy.590 Edna challenges the Five Wishes Document, MetLife Policy beneficiary
    designation dated September 13, 2017, and the Death Benefit beneficiary change
    589
    Edna’s Counterclaim Counts II, III, VII, and VIII do not assert causes of action;
    rather, they identify remedies. Edna also brought a counterclaim for tortious interference
    with economic interest, but she failed to address that claim in post-trial briefing. It is
    deemed waived. See Emerald P’rs v. Berlin, 
    726 A.2d 1215
    , 1225 (Del. 1999).
    590
    See D.I. 119 at 45–54.
    79
    dated August 2, 2017.591 Arguing that Ronald suffered from weakened intellect,
    Edna further contends that Donna and Kimberlyn bear the burden of demonstrating
    that he was not unduly influenced when executing these documents, and that they
    have failed to carry that burden.592 Accordingly, Edna asks for the foregoing
    documents to be rescinded or otherwise determined to be invalid.593 I conclude
    Ronald was not of weakened intellect and that Edna has failed to carry her burden
    that he was unduly influenced by his daughters when executing these documents.
    Because the Five Wishes Document is inadmissible, my undue influence analysis
    addresses only the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit.
    “Undue influence occurs when a party exerts immoderate influence under
    the circumstances that overcomes the transferor’s free will, resulting in a transfer
    that is not of her own choice and mind.”594 For influence to be undue, it must rise
    to the level as to “subjugate [the actor’s] mind to the will of another, to overcome
    his free agency and independent volition, and to compel him to make a [document
    591
    See D.I. 119 at 34. Edna does not challenge the validity of the Statement of Wishes,
    contending that the PTO “identif[ed] only the August 3, 2017 and the September 13,
    2017 documents as requiring validation.”
    Id. at 34
    n.2. I address this procedural
    argument below.
    592
    See D.I. 119 at 53–54.
    593
    See D.I. 119 at 60.
    594
    Mitchell v. Reynolds, 
    2009 WL 132881
    , at *8 (Del. Ch. Jan. 6, 2009).
    80
    or transfer] that speaks the mind of another and not his own.”595 The defense
    requires “an excessive or inordinate influence considering the circumstances of the
    particular case.”596 “Unfair persuasion is the hallmark of undue influence.”597
    The elements of undue influence are: (1) a susceptible testator; (2) the
    opportunity to exert influence; (3) a disposition to do so for an improper purpose;
    (4) the actual exertion of such influence; and (5) a result demonstrating its effect.598
    Such a claim is “fact-intensive” and “often lacks direct evidence.”599 The party
    claiming a document or transfer was the product of undue influence “must show
    that the [transferor’s] mind was overcome by the influencer.”600 But this burden
    shifts “under factual situations that lack implicit ethical safeguards.”601
    1.      Edna Bears The Burden Of Proving Undue
    Influence.
    595
    Sloan II, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *7 (quoting In re Estate of West, 
    522 A.2d 1256
    , 1263
    (Del. 1987)).
    596
    Mitchell, 
    2009 WL 132881
    , at *8 (quoting In re Will of McElhinney, 
    2007 WL 2896013
    , at *3 (Del. Ch. Oct. 1, 2007)).
    597
    Id. 598 Sloan
    II, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *7.
    599
    IMO the LW & T of Hurley, 
    2014 WL 1088913
    , at *5 (Del. Ch. Mar. 20, 2014).
    600
    Will of Nicholson, 
    1998 WL 118203
    , at *3 (Del. Ch. Mar. 9, 1998); see Sloan v. Segal
    (Sloan I), 
    2009 WL 1204494
    , at *13 (Del. Ch. Apr. 24, 2009) (noting challenging party
    bears the burden of proving undue influence absent special circumstances), aff’d, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    (Del. 2010) (TABLE).
    601
    Sloan I, 
    2009 WL 1204494
    at *13 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re
    Will of Melson, 
    711 A.2d 783
    , 787 (Del. 1998)).
    81
    In In re Last Will and Testament of Melson,602 our Supreme Court held that
    the burden of proof shifts to the proponent of the transfer document where the
    challenging party demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that: 1) the
    document was executed by a testator who was “of weakened intellect”; 2) the
    document was drafted by a person in a confidential relationship with the testator;
    and 3) the drafter received a substantial benefit thereunder.603 If this showing is
    made, the burden shifts to the proponent to prove the absence of undue influence
    by a preponderance of the evidence.604 Edna has failed to demonstrate by clear and
    convincing evidence that the burden of proof should be shifted to Donna and
    Kimberlyn under Melson.
    I first consider whether Donna and Kimberlyn were in a confidential
    relationship with Ronald.         “Even outside a formally recognized fiduciary
    relationship, a relationship predicated on particular confidence or reliance may
    give rise to fiduciary obligations. Eschewing a formalistic approach, Delaware
    courts have declined to establish set bounds for such relationships, in favor of a
    pragmatic, fact-driven inquiry.”605 In Sloan v. Segal, our Supreme Court stated
    602
    
    711 A.2d 783
    (Del. 1998).
    603
    Sloan I, 
    2009 WL 1204494
    at *13 (quoting In re Will of 
    Melson, 711 A.2d at 788
    );
    accord Sloan II, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *6; In re Estate of Hammond, 
    2012 WL 3877799
    ,
    at *3 (Del. Ch. Aug. 30, 2012).
    604
    Sloan II, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *6.
    605
    Mitchell, 
    2009 WL 132881
    , at *9.
    82
    “[a] confidential relationship exists where ‘circumstances make it
    certain the parties do not deal on equal terms but on one side there is
    an overmastering influence or on the other weakness, dependence or
    trust, justifiably reposed.’” This court has often found that a
    confidential relationship existed where, as here, an adult child was
    taking care of an aging or infirm parent. In those cases, the court took
    into consideration whether the testators’ relationships with their non-
    caretaker children were strained and whether the caretaking children
    were acting with power of attorney for their parents. These
    circumstances lend themselves to the creation of a confidential
    relationship because the parent must rely on a trusted child for
    physical, emotional, or decisional support.606
    Clear and convincing evidence supports the conclusion that Donna and Kimberlyn
    were in a confidential relationship with Ronald.
    When he entered their care on July 30, 2017, he was dependent on them for
    his physical support, shelter, access to medical care, and ability to handle his
    financial affairs.   Ronald could not complete basic tasks without assistance.
    Reinforcing their existing fiduciary relationship, Ronald executed a power of
    attorney in favor of Donna and Kimberlyn in September 2017. As of July 30,
    Donna and Kimberlyn assumed a fiduciary obligation to Ronald, such that they
    were in a confidential relationship when Ronald executed changes to the MetLife
    606
    Sloan I, 
    2009 WL 1204494
    , at *13 (footnotes omitted) (quoting In re Will of Wiltbank,
    
    2005 WL 2810725
    , at *6 (Del. Ch. Oct. 18, 2005)); see also Mitchell, 
    2009 WL 132881
    ,
    at *9 (“This Court has frequently looked to the transferor’s extensive or exclusive
    reliance on another for physical, emotional, or decisional support, a query informed by
    the transferor’s disposition and mental and physical capabilities, as well as the existence
    of any additional support network.”)).
    83
    Policy and Death Benefit. Assuming, but not deciding, that Donna and Kimberlyn
    “drafted” the documents by helping Ronald complete them, Edna has satisfied the
    second Melson factor by clear and convincing evidence.
    As for the third Melson factor, Donna and Kimberlyn received a substantial
    benefit from Ronald’s changes to the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit.607 As
    beneficiaries, they are to receive a total of roughly $107,000. Whether or not they
    planned to use those funds to pay Ronald’s funeral expenses does not bear on this
    analysis.       Before Ronald executed the beneficiary change forms, Donna and
    Kimberlyn were to receive nothing from the policies. Now, they stand to receive it
    all. That is a substantial benefit.608
    I now turn to the first Melson factor and consider whether the MetLife
    Policy and Death Benefit changes were executed when Ronald suffered from
    weakened intellect.
    607
    See Sloan I, 
    2009 WL 1204494
    , at *14.
    608
    Id. 84 Although
    a precise standard for “weakened intellect” has not been
    articulated in our law, it has been recognized that the party
    challenging a [document] need not demonstrate an advanced degree of
    debilitation. Instead, “[t]he Court need only find that such ‘weakened
    intellect’ existed, taking into account factors such as a sudden change
    in the testator’s living habits and emotional disposition.” Importantly,
    the court need not find that someone lacked testamentary capacity to
    find that she was suffering from a weakened intellect.609
    But this is a fact-intensive inquiry, and the Court considers all circumstances,
    including whether the individual was suffering from a debilitating mental condition
    and whether objective evidence indicates that the individual could comprehend,
    understand, and make decisions himself.610
    Edna admits that none of Ronald’s doctors indicated that he was incapable
    of making his own decisions before July 31, 2017. Ronald executed a power of
    attorney in Edna’s favor on July 24, which Edna believes to be valid. Despite
    Ronald’s single hallucination episode in May 2017 and despite his long-time
    depression and anxiety diagnoses, Edna believed Ronald was able to exercise his
    own judgment shortly before he left her on July 30.611 I find the same. And the
    evidence demonstrates that Ronald left Edna of his own volition on that day. 612
    609
    Sloan I, 
    2009 WL 1204494
    , at *13 (alteration in original) (footnotes omitted) (quoting
    and citing In re Will of Wiltbank, 
    2005 WL 2810725
    , at *6).
    610
    See id.; In re Estate of Hammond, 
    2012 WL 3877799
    , at *3.
    611
    See Sloan I, 
    2009 WL 1204494
    , at *11, *15.
    612
    See, e.g., Kimberlyn Tr. 524:17–19 (“I don’t want to be here with her no more. I am
    sick of her stuff. I want to go. I want out of here.”); Donna Tr. 686:22 (“He was tired of
    85
    After leaving Edna, Ronald continued to suffer from depression and anxiety,
    and those conditions were likely exasperated by his “major change of living
    situation,” which was a “major stressor.”613 When determining whether Ronald
    suffered from weakened intellect, I consider Ronald’s change in living situation
    and emotional disposition in view of the other facts of this case.614 Edna contends
    that Ronald’s depression and anxiety, coupled with using medications that
    potentially could impair his mental faculties, rendered him of weakened
    intellect.615 On this, I disagree.
    Ronald’s medical records indicate that Ronald’s depression and anxiety did
    not render him incapable of making his own decisions and of overriding Donna
    and Kimberlyn’s suggestions.616 They show that his doctors believed Ronald’s
    mental health was good considering his circumstances.               Ronald was “alert,
    [Edna’s] sh*t. His words.”). Edna maintains that on July 30, Ronald was incapable of
    making decisions for himself, and that he was coerced into leaving. See, e.g., Edna Tr.
    133:20–23. But the evidence demonstrates that Ronald chose to leave on his own
    volition. His 2017 decision to leave Edna is consistent with his 2012 decision to do the
    same, and Edna concedes that Ronald left of his own volition in 2012. See
    id. 112:11–13. I
    do not find Edna’s testimony credible, and her position is contrary to the weight of the
    evidence.
    613
    JX 58 at E.Williams000467.
    614
    See Sloan I, 
    2009 WL 1204494
    , at *13.
    615
    See D.I. 119 at 45–49.
    616
    See Sloan I, 
    2009 WL 1204494
    , at *13.
    86
    oriented, cooperative, and appropriately conversant,”617 he had “normal attention
    span and concentration,”618 and his “mood and affect [we]re appropriate for the
    circumstance.”619        Ronald could comprehend his treatment, understand
    communications with his doctors, and make decisions for himself.620 The records
    explicitly state that Ronald was “oriented” and was not “forgetful” or
    “disoriented.”621 Ronald’s medical records support a finding by the preponderance
    of the evidence that Ronald did not suffer from weakened intellect, despite his
    depression and anxiety and despite taking a number of medications that could have
    caused reduced mental capacity, but did not.622
    And Ronald continued managing his own financial affairs with his
    daughters’ assistance; he did not relinquish control. He paid bills, received mail,
    and made phone calls. When communicating with financial institutions, Ronald
    initiated the conversation, spoke with representatives, and permitted his daughters
    to speak with them. Tellingly, although Ronald executed a power of attorney in
    617
    E.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000536, E.Williams000521; see also E.Williams000513
    (“Mental status is alert.”), E.Williams000489 (same), E.Williams000721 (same),
    E.Williams000656 (“Psychiatric: Oriented and appropriate”).
    618
    E.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000462.
    619
    E.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000529.
    620
    See, e.g., JX 58 at E.Williams000444–46, E.Williams000551, E.Williams000587;
    Donna Tr. 702.
    621
    JX 58 at E.Williams000542.
    622
    See Sloan II, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *7.
    87
    their favor, Donna and Kimberlyn never used it. Donna and Kimberlyn dealt with
    these matters with Ronald, rather than simply on his behalf.623
    The fact that Donna and Kimberlyn occasionally helped Ronald complete
    and understand documents does not render Ronald of weakened intellect. Ronald
    made his own decisions and understood the implications of the documents he
    executed. While his daughters sometimes explained those documents and other
    financial information to Ronald, he had the mental wherewithal to choose for
    himself and comprehend his actions. Ronald did not lose this ability until the first
    week of October 2017, when both his physical and mental health rapidly
    deteriorated.
    Kimberlyn and Donna’s dealings with their father from July 30, 2017
    onward do not present a “factual situation[] that lack[s] implicit ethical
    safeguards.”624       While satisfying two Melson factors, Edna has failed to
    demonstrate by clear and convincing Evidence that Ronald suffered from
    “weakened intellect” on August 2 and September 13, when he executed the
    documents she challenges.          The burden remains with Edna to prove by a
    preponderance of the evidence that Ronald was unduly influenced by his daughters
    when he named them as beneficiaries of the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit.
    623
    Compare Sloan I, 
    2009 WL 1204494
    , at *13.
    624
    Sloan I, 
    2009 WL 1204494
    , at *13 (quotation omitted).
    88
    2.      Edna Has Failed To Carry Her Burden.
    Edna must prove (1) Ronald was susceptible, (2) Donna and Kimberlyn had
    the opportunity to exert influence, (3) Donna and Kimberlyn had a disposition to
    do so for an improper purpose, (4) the actual exertion of such influence, and (5) a
    result demonstrating its effect.625 Edna has failed to do so.
    Enda has satisfied the first and second elements of the undue influence
    claim. Ronald was a susceptible individual.
    There is no precise definition or defining feature of susceptibility, but
    the analysis is informed by the subject’s capacity and does not require
    an advanced degree of debilitation. Evidence of a subject’s
    dependence on another, or a particular predisposition to accede to the
    demands of another person, may be sufficient to show
    susceptibility.626
    The Court has previously determined an individual to be susceptible where he
    suffered “diminished capacity to take care of basic daily tasks” and “needed to rely
    on the help of family members and [the alleged influencer].”627 While a finding of
    weakened intellect informs the inquiry, it is not necessary to render an individual
    susceptible.628
    625
    Sloan II, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *7.
    626
    In Matter of Estate of Dougherty, 
    2016 WL 4130812
    , at *10 (Del. Ch. July 22, 2016)
    (footnotes omitted); see also Mitchell, 
    2009 WL 132881
    , at *9.
    627
    In re Boyd, 
    2003 WL 21003272
    , at *6 (Del. Ch. Apr. 24, 2003).
    628
    Matter of Estate of West, 
    1985 WL 149632
    , at *4–5 (Del. Ch. June 20, 1985) (finding
    a testator did not lack testamentary capacity, but was susceptible due to her weakened
    89
    In this case, Ronald was dependent on Donna and Kimberlyn for his
    physical care after July 30, 2017. Ronald suffered from serious physical problems,
    and as a result, relied on Kimberly and Donna to assist him with basic tasks, as
    well as with managing his finances. And because of his immobility, Ronald was
    relatively confined to Donna’s home, where Donna and Kimberlyn had near-
    constant access to him, being Ronald’s primary caretakers apart from his
    physicians. They spent considerable time with Ronald from July 30, 2017 onward.
    Ronald’s severely weakened condition and physical pain, coupled with his
    immobile, relatively confined circumstances, made him susceptible to undue
    influence.629     The opportunity prong is satisfied by the fact that Donna and
    Kimberly helped Ronald complete the beneficiary changes at issue, as well as other
    changes to his affairs.630 This is sufficient to establish that Ronald was susceptible
    condition and the fact that she was living with another because she was unable to care for
    herself); see Matter of Kittila, 
    2015 WL 688868
    , at *15 (Del. Ch. Feb. 18, 2015)
    (MASTER’S REPORT) (concluding the testator did not have weakened intellect, and
    further concluding she was not susceptible because she was not socially isolated and was
    not dependent on others for her day-to-day life).
    629
    See Mitchell, 
    2009 WL 132881
    , at *10; Matter of Estate of Konopka, 
    1988 WL 62915
    ,
    at *3, *4 (Del. Ch. June 17, 1988) (noting that “undisputed evidence that [the individual]
    was suffering from severe physical problems,” coupled with other factors, may be “amply
    sufficient to establish that [the individual] was susceptible to undue influence”).
    630
    See Sloan II, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *7.
    90
    and that Donna and Kimberlyn had the requisite opportunity to exert undue
    influence.631
    The third element of undue influence, motive to do so for an “improper
    purpose,” may be satisfied where the alleged influencer “stood to benefit
    financially from such action”632 under circumstances in which the alleged
    influencer’s “continued ability to support himself was dependent on” the
    challenged transaction.633       Edna attacked Donna and Kimberlyn’s financial
    situation,634 but while they carried debt, Donna and Kimberlyn’s families were
    self-sufficient without the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit.635
    Edna has also failed to demonstrate that Donna and Kimberlyn’s finances
    motivated them to assist Ronald with changing the beneficiaries for the MetLife
    Policy and Death Benefit. In the first instance, those funds were always intended
    to pay for Ronald’s funeral expenses, which remain outstanding. As for excess
    631
    See Mitchell, 
    2009 WL 132881
    , at *10 (finding both elements satisfied where the
    testator was “was sick and required assistance in her daily living,” where she “relied on
    [the alleged influencer], who spent considerable time with her,” and where there was
    “some doubt as to [the testator’s] ability to manage her finances consistently”).
    632
    See Sloan II, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *7.
    633
    Sloan I, 
    2009 WL 1204494
    , at *16.
    634
    See D.I. 119 at 50.
    635
    See, e.g., Kimberlyn Tr. 455:1–456:8, 458:8–12, 472:23–473:1; Donna Tr. 721:16–19,
    806:22–24.
    91
    funds, the evidence demonstrates that Donna and Kimberlyn were indifferent to
    that fact. As Kimberlyn testified,
    I had nothing to benefit out of this. Do you actually think I wanted
    this? My father was just told on September 12 when we took him to
    see his cardiologist, with the hope of now that he’s in remission for
    his cancer, was released by Dr. Masters, now he can actually do
    something about his heart. We never had any idea that day we walked
    in there . . . He came in and sat down and he said, there’s nothing we
    can do for you. You are going to die. It threw me for a loop. You
    know what, out of all of that my dad still had the optimism when he
    walked out into that parking lot, because me and my sister had to hold
    ourselves together, couldn’t breakdown and cry in front of him. We
    had to hold ourselves together. He said, I guess I got to get my affairs
    in order. I never asked for this. We was put in the middle of this.
    But at the end of the day I did everything my father asked me to do
    because that’s my father. I would do the same thing for my mother. I
    didn’t ask for his money. I didn’t need it. I have my own money. So
    I didn’t do this to benefit out of anything. I did this for my dad
    because guess what? He didn’t have anybody else. Him and his wife
    wasn’t getting along. My brother abandoned him. My older sister
    didn’t see him. No one came to see my dad. The only one he had
    there was me and my sister. So I don’t want there to be under any
    misconceptions we were trying to benefit of this. I didn’t want to do
    this.636
    Kimberlyn and Donna were not motivated by personal gain.637 While they “stood
    to benefit financially”638 from Ronald’s decision to remove Edna from the MetLife
    636
    Kimberlyn Tr. 455:1–456:8.
    637
    There is some hypocrisy in Edna’s argument. Edna was motivated in substantial part
    by personal gain to bring this lawsuit, which seeks the MetLife Policy, the Death Benefit,
    and to disinter her husband’s body. Edna remains able to be buried with Ronald in the
    Veterans’ Cemetery.
    92
    Policy and Death Benefit, they did not require the policy funds for the “continued
    ability to support [themselves].”639
    Edna also sees an improper motive in what she calls Donna and Kimberlyn’s
    “long-standing and implacable hostility towards Edna.”640 While it may be true
    that Donna and Kimberlyn disliked Edna, the evidence demonstrates that they were
    motivated by their care for their father.         When they assisted him with the
    beneficiary change forms, they did so with the knowledge that Ronald was dying
    and that he wanted to unburden them of his funeral costs. Nothing in the record
    demonstrates that they assisted Ronald with these forms to spite Edna. At trial,
    Donna testified,
    I didn’t ask for this by any means necessary. The picture that is being
    painted of me is -- it is ridiculous. I never asked my father to leave
    his wife. I never asked for my father to come live with me. I did
    what I thought I needed to do. The Bible says, “Honor thy father and
    honor thy mother.” That is what I did. I didn’t -- am I an expert on
    medical documentation, by no means. But I thought what I thought I
    needed to do. What am I going to do tell this man, get out. Sorry,
    you can’t live with me. Sorry you don’t want to go back to your wife.
    That’s not my problem. No, I wouldn’t do that. I had to take this in
    stride and figure it out. That is all I did was try to figure it out one
    day at a time.641
    638
    Sloan II, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *7.
    639
    Sloan I, 
    2009 WL 1204494
    , at *16.
    640
    D.I. 119 at 50.
    641
    Donna Tr. 699:11–22.
    93
    Donna and Kimberlyn never looked at their father’s misfortune as an
    opportunity for their own gain over Edna, notwithstanding their checkered family
    history and the role that Edna played in it. And despite their distaste for Edna,
    Donna and Kimberlyn allowed her to attend Ronald’s funeral, and have not
    complained about Edna receiving the rest of Ronald’s estate. Their problems with
    Edna did not materialize into the improper purpose necessary to support Edna’s
    claim.
    Even if Edna had demonstrated the third element of improper motive, this
    Court is hesitant to “invalidate a document where doing so might frustrate the
    testator’s intent.”642 Accordingly, our Supreme Court has made clear “that the
    existence of the opportunity to exert undue influence and a motive to do so is not
    enough to invalidate a will; rather there must also be actual exertion of improper
    influence and a result demonstrating its effect.”643         In this case, Donna and
    Kimberlyn became the beneficiaries of the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit, and
    that is sufficient to satisfy the fifth element: a result demonstrating the effect of
    undue influence.644 Thus, the pivotal issue is whether the evidence establishes that
    642
    Sloan I, 
    2009 WL 1204494
    , at *16.
    643
    Sloan II, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *7.
    644
    See In re Boyd, 
    2003 WL 21003272
    , at *7 (Del. Ch. Apr. 24, 2003).
    94
    Donna and Kimberlyn actually exerted undue influence upon their father. It does
    not.
    Actual exertion cannot be satisfied where the action is consistent with the
    individual’s intent.645 Ronald wanted nothing to do with Edna after he left her on
    July 30. He removed Edna as an authorized user on his financial accounts and
    redirected his income out of their joint bank account. He obtained a PFA against
    her to keep her away from him. He named Donna and Kimberlyn, not Edna, as his
    agents. As explained below, he changed his burial plans to separate himself from
    Edna forever. Ronald removed Edna as the beneficiary of his MetLife and Death
    Benefit to further implement his desire for a complete separation.            As the
    Statement of Wishes demonstrates, Ronald tasked Donna and Kimberlyn with
    handling those arrangements, finances included; Ronald was adamant that Edna
    have no involvement. Ronald made Donna and Kimberlyn the beneficiaries so
    they could bear the financial burden of his burial. The documents Edna challenges
    are consistent with Ronald’s intention, as proven by the evidence presented at trial,
    to excise Edna from his remaining days and burial plans.
    As a result, the changes to the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit do not
    reflect actual exertion of undue influence.        This is especially true “given the
    emotionally charged way their relationship ended,” as well as the fact that Ronald
    645
    See Sloan II, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *7.
    95
    did not want any contact with Edna after he left her in July 2017. 646 Rather, the
    changes reflect Ronald’s genuine desire to ensure that he was completely separated
    from Edna, and that Donna and Kimberlyn would receive the MetLife Policy and
    Death Benefit funds to ease their financial burden after his death.
    The beneficiary changes to the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit are valid.
    Donna and Kimberlyn are entitled to a declaratory judgment to that effect.
    B.     Edna’s Tortious Interference And Unjust Enrichment Claims
    Also Fail.
    Ronald wanted Donna and Kimberlyn to receive the benefit of the MetLife
    Policy and Death Benefit in order to lessen their financial burden from his death.
    Donna and Kimberlyn took actions related to those benefits at Ronald’s request
    and to fulfill his wishes. More importantly, Ronald was adamant that Edna should
    not receive the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit funds, consistent with the fact
    that he forbade her involvement in his funeral. In view of these facts, Edna’s
    claims for tortious interference with inheritance and unjust enrichment must fail.
    Edna concedes that that this Court has been reluctant to recognize tortious
    interference with inheritance as a cause of action.647 While other states recognize
    this cause of action, this case does not present grounds to bring that tort to
    646
    Sloan I, 
    2009 WL 1204494
    , at *17.
    647
    See D.I. 119 at 56.
    96
    Delaware. As this Court stated in Mitchell v. Reynolds, “[t]o the extent [Edna’s]
    challenge is based on tortious interference with inheritance, Delaware’s
    recognition of that cause of action is open to question and the facts of this case are
    outside the bounds of that tort as presented.”648 Donna and Kimberlyn did not
    unduly influence or defraud Ronald into removing Edna as the beneficiary of the
    MetLife Policy and Death Benefit. The choice was his and his alone. Donna and
    Kimberlyn only assisted Ronald in doing what he wanted to do.649
    For the same reasons, Edna cannot demonstrate that Donna and Kimberlyn
    were unjustly enriched by Ronald’s changes to the MetLife Policy and Death
    Benefit. To prevail on an unjust enrichment claim, Edna must demonstrate by a
    preponderance of the evidence (1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a
    relation between the enrichment and impoverishment, (4) the absence of
    justification, and (5) the absence of a remedy provided by law. 650           Our law
    recognizes that if a transfer is the result of undue influence, justification is absent
    and a remedy—often a constructive trust—is available.651 But as discussed at
    648
    Mitchell, 
    2009 WL 132881
    , at *13.
    649
    Id. at *13
    n.111 (noting the elements of Pennsylvania’s tortious interference with
    inheritance claim include that the defendant used fraud, misrepresentation or undue
    influence to prevent execution of the intended bequest and noting that the Third Circuit
    recognizes “the tort is not recognized in all states, specifically citing Delaware”).
    650
    Nemec v. Shrader, 
    991 A.2d 1120
    , 1130 (Del. 2010).
    651
    See Jankouskas v. Adams, 
    1981 WL 15142
    , at *3 (Del. Ch. May 18, 1981). Indeed,
    Edna seeks such a remedy in this case. See D.I. 119 at 58–59.
    97
    length, Ronald’s actions were not the result of his daughters’ undue influence and
    were consistent with his own intentions. Accordingly, Edna’s claim fails.
    C.     Ronald Shall Remain Buried At The Veterans Cemetery.
    The parties seek competing declaratory judgments regarding Ronald’s last
    funeral and burial rights.652 Edna maintains that Ronald’s remains were interred
    with a funeral home contrary to his wishes, subjected to a funeral not of his
    choosing that was arranged and conducted by individuals not of his choosing, and
    buried contrary to his wishes. But the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates
    that Ronald wanted to be buried in the Veterans Cemetery and that he wanted
    Kimberlyn and Donna to organize his burial and dispose of his remains.
    Kimberlyn and Donna are entitled to relief.
    As a proud veteran, Ronald always intended to memorialize his military
    service at his funeral. While he initially intended to be buried with Edna at
    Gracelawn, his intentions changed as his relationship with Edna soured to the point
    of no return. Ronald wanted to separate himself from his estranged wife in life and
    death. Accordingly, Ronald told his daughters and others that he no longer wanted
    652
    Edna seeks a declaration that she is authorized to oversee Ronald’s last funeral and
    burial rights, including but not limited to the disinterment of his remains and reburial at
    Gracelawn. In their only affirmative claim, Kimberlyn and Donna seek a declaration that
    they had authority to dispose of Ronald’s remains and that Ronald shall remain buried in
    the Veterans Cemetery. In addition, both parties seek a declaratory judgment regarding
    the MetLife Policy and Death Benefit beneficiary changes. Those concerns were
    addressed above in my undue influence assessment: the beneficiary changes are valid.
    98
    to be buried with Edna and that he wanted to be laid to rest in the Veterans
    Cemetery. Ronald stated that he “did not want that fat B laying on top of him” 653
    and that “[h]e didn’t want her to be involved or see anything.” 654 Acting on this
    choice, Ronald completed an application to obtain what he was entitled to: a
    peaceful resting place among his fellow veterans in honor of his service to our
    country.655
    Ronald also completed a Statement of Wishes in his own hand.         The
    Statement of Wishes is clear. It mandates that Ronald’s “[f]uneral arrangements
    [are] to be handled by my daughters Kimberlyn Ray and Donna Williams” and
    further mandates that Edna shall not be involved in Ronald’s funeral arrangements
    under any circumstances.656 The Statement of Wishes is an undisputedly valid and
    authenticated expression of Ronald’s intent for Donna and Kimberlyn, not Edna, to
    handle his burial and funeral. As explained, Ronald created the Statement of
    Wishes with full capacity and without the exercise of undue influence.          It
    contributes mightily to the preponderance of evidence proving Ronald wanted
    Donna and Kimberlyn to handle his funeral and burial.
    653
    Patricia Tr. 738:5–6.
    654
    Patricia Tr. 738:22–23.
    655
    See JX 14.
    656
    JX 23.
    99
    Donna and Kimberlyn arranged Ronald’s funeral and his burial in the
    Veterans Cemetery. While the Statement of Wishes is silent as to where Ronald
    wanted to be buried, it gave Donna and Kimberlyn the authority to bury Ronald in
    the Veterans Cemetery as he intended. Donna and Kimberlyn honored their
    father’s wishes and disposed of his remains as he desired.
    Edna tries to dislodge this evidence, and particularly the Statement of
    Wishes, through unfounded procedural technicalities.                   She contends that
    Kimberlyn and Donna built their entire case on the Five Wishes Document,
    specifically JX 13; that they failed to raise the Statement of Wishes’ sufficiency as
    a declaration under 
    12 Del. C
    . § 262 as an issue of law to be litigated;657 that by
    these tactical choices, no evidence other than the Five Wishes Document, including
    the Statement of Wishes, can support their claim; and that the Five Wishes
    Document cannot serve as a Section 262 declaration because it is inauthentic,
    657
    Section 262 is titled “Declaration of Disposition of Last Remains” and provides:
    The declarant may specify, in a declaration instrument, any 1 or more of the
    following:
    (1) The disposition to be made of the declarant’s last remains;
    (2) Who may direct the disposition of the declarant’s last remains;
    (3) The ceremonial arrangements to be performed after the declarant’s
    death;
    (4) Who may direct the ceremonial arrangement after the declarant’s death;
    or
    (5) The rights, limitations, immunities, and other terms of third parties
    dealing with the declaration instrument.
    100
    leaving Kimberlyn and Donna without any evidence that Ronald wanted to be
    buried in the Veterans Cemetery.658
    As explained above, both iterations of the Five Wishes Document, presented
    at JX 13 and JX 57, are inadmissible.                I do not consider the Five Wishes
    Documents when determining Ronald’s final wishes and intentions. Accordingly,
    I need not determine whether JX 13 or JX 57 meet Section 262’s requirements for
    a declaration instrument.
    Contrary to Edna’s contention, Donna and Kimberlyn rely on much more
    than JX 13 to prove Ronald’s intent. In particular, Donna and Kimberlyn have
    relied on the Statement of Wishes since this action’s inception. They submitted
    both JX 13 and the Statement of Wishes to this Court when they filed their Petition
    and moved for the October 2017 TRO.659 The Petition primarily relies on the
    Statement of Wishes.660 Chancellor Bouchard considered both JX 13 and the
    Statement of Wishes when granting the October 2017 TRO,661 and he was
    especially persuaded by the Statement of Wishes.662
    658
    See D.I. 119 at 54–55; D.I. 125 at 14–15 (citing PTO at 6).
    659
    See Pet. ¶¶ 7, 11, 18; D.I. 100 at 6:13–20.
    660
    Compare Pet. ¶¶ 11, 18, with
    id. ¶ 7.
    661
    See D.I. 100 at 6:13–20, 20:22–19, 33:22–34:16.
    662
    See D.I. 100 at 33:22–34:16 (“The second document is dated September 18th, 2017.
    That document is called a statement of wishes. In this document, Mr. Williams
    personally wrote in longhand that his funeral arrangements were to be handled by his
    101
    Edna seeks shelter in the fact that Donna and Kimberlyn did not include the
    Statement of Wishes’ status as a Section 262 declaration as an issue of law to be
    litigated in the Pre-Trial Order.663      Unlike the Five Wishes Document, the
    Statement of Wishes’ authenticity is not disputed. And Edna has advanced no
    meaningful argument that the Statement of Wishes is not a declaration instrument
    under Section 262.664
    The Statement of Wishes was produced in discovery, and Edna had the
    opportunity to ask questions about it at deposition.665 It appeared on the Amended
    Joint Exhibit List without objection, was offered by Donna and Kimberlyn at trial,
    and was admitted into evidence.666 Edna had the opportunity to ask questions of
    those who testified about it.667 There was no motion in limine and no objection at
    daughters, Kimberlyn Ray and Donna Williams. That’s the document, Mr. Powell, I
    handed to you earlier. Mr. Williams also wrote that he did not want his wife to be
    involved in his funeral arrangements. By the way, I have taken a look at that document.
    I have dealt with a few competency cases in my life, and from the face of it, it did not
    look like an incompetent person completed that document. The expression of the wishes
    was very clear. I’m not saying there couldn’t be authentication issues, or something like
    that, associated with that document, but there wasn’t an obvious indication that this was
    completed by somebody who didn’t know what he wanted.”).
    663
    See D.I. 125 at 15.
    664
    See generally D.I. 119, 125.
    665
    See D.I. 132 at 28:4–11.
    666
    See D.I. 105; JX 23.
    667
    See D.I. 132 at 28:4–11.
    102
    trial regarding the Statement of Wishes.668 And when pressed on Edna’s position
    at post-trial argument, her counsel could not identify case law supporting the
    proposition that if evidence does not go directly to a specifically stated issue of law
    to be litigated in the pretrial order, then the Court cannot rely on that evidence for
    broader issues, even if the evidence was presented and elicited testimony at trial.669
    I do not adopt Edna’s unsupported position.
    As explained, the Statement of Wishes provides powerful and unrebutted
    evidence that Ronald wanted Donna and Kimberlyn, and not Edna, to handle his
    burial and funeral. Even without the trappings of Section 262, the Statement of
    Wishes presents powerful evidence of Ronald’s intent. The fact that its status
    under Section 262—which appears to be undisputed—was not raised in the Pre-
    Trial Order does not diminish its evidentiary effect.
    To resolve any doubt, I further find that the Statement of Wishes constitutes
    a declaration instrument under 
    12 Del. C
    . § 262. That provision allows one to
    execute a declaration instrument that directs the disposition of one’s last remains
    and identifies who may direct disposition of the remains and handle ceremonial
    arrangements. The Delaware Code defines “declaration instrument” as “a written
    instrument, signed by a declarant, governing the disposition of the declarant’s last
    668
    See D.I. 132 at 29:13–18.
    669
    See D.I. 132 at 30:1–12.
    103
    remains and the ceremonies planned after a declarant’s death.”670 Ronald wrote the
    Statement of Wishes by hand and signed it. Under the plain language of Section
    262, the Statement of Wishes is a valid declaration instrument directing Donna and
    Kimberlyn, to the exclusion of Edna, to direct the disposition of Ronald’s remains
    and his ceremonial arrangements.
    Donna and Kimberlyn are entitled to a declaratory judgment that Ronald’s
    remains were disposed of consistent with his wishes and shall remain in the
    Veterans Cemetery.             Edna is not entitled to a declaratory judgment in
    contravention of the Statement of Wishes’ express terms. Ronald’s body shall not
    be disinterred, and he shall remain buried in the Veterans Cemetery.
    D.     The Unclean Hands Doctrine Does Not Bar Donna And
    Kimberlyn’s Request For A Declaratory Judgement.
    Donna and Kimberlyn seek a declaration that Ronald’s body should not be
    disinterred and that his changes to the Death Benefit and MetLife Policy
    beneficiary designations are valid. Edna contends that their affirmative claim for
    relief is barred by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands.671 I disagree and hold
    that the doctrine of unclean hands does not foreclose a declaratory judgment in
    Donna and Kimberlyn’s favor.
    670
    
    12 Del. C
    . § 260.
    671
    See D.I. 119 at 34–44.
    104
    “The affirmative defense of unclean hands embodies the basic and long
    upheld principle followed by the Court of Chancery that ‘he who comes into equity
    must come with clean hands.’”672 “The doctrine is aimed at providing courts of
    equity with a shield from the potentially entangling misdeeds of the litigants in any
    given case.”673 The Court has “extraordinarily broad discretion in application of
    the doctrine [of unclean hands].”674 But “the improper conduct must relate directly
    to the underlying litigation.”675         And the “inequitable conduct must have an
    immediate and necessary relation to the claims under which relief is sought,’”676
    and the litigant must engage in “reprehensible conduct in relation to the matter in
    controversy.”677 Where the alleged inequitable conduct is “far beyond the scope of
    the Complaint in this action” or is “irrelevant to the question of” law before the
    672
    In re Barker Tr. Agreement, 
    2007 WL 1800645
    , at *11 (Del. Ch. June 13, 2007)
    (quoting Bodley v. Jones, 
    59 A.2d 463
    , 469 (Del. Ch. 1947)).
    673
    Sloan II, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *6.
    674
    Id. (alteration in
    original) (quoting Nakahara v. NS 1991 American Tr., 
    718 A.2d 518
    ,
    522 (Del. Ch. 1998)); see also Matter of Lomax, 
    2019 WL 4955315
    , at *2–3 (Del. Ch.
    Oct. 8, 2019).
    675
    Sloan II, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *6 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
    
    Nakahara, 718 A.2d at 522
    ).
    676
    Id. (quoting 
    Nakahara, 718 A.2d at 522
    ).
    677
    Matter of Lomax, 
    2019 WL 4955315
    , at *2–3 (quoting In re Rural/Metro Corp.
    Stockholders Litig., 
    102 A.3d 205
    , 237–38 (Del. Ch. 2014)); accord In re Barker Tr.
    Agreement, 
    2007 WL 1800645
    , at *11.
    105
    Court, unclean hands will not apply.678 The party asserting the unclean hands bears
    the burden of pleading and proving the affirmative defense.679
    For the Court to apply the unclean hands doctrine in this case, Edna must
    prove that Donna and Kimberlyn’s purported inequitable conduct relates directly to
    this litigation and has an “immediate and necessary” relationship to the claims
    under which relief is sought.680 Edna contends that Donna and Kimberlyn are
    barred by unclean hands for three reasons: 1) “their exercise of undue influence,”
    2) “their breaches of fiduciary duties,” and 3) “their actions, fraudulent at worst,
    unconscionable at best,” relating to the Five Wishes Document, presented in the
    October 2017 TRO as JX 13.681 These grounds are insufficient to justify invoking
    unclean hands to bar Donna and Kimberlyn’s claim. I address each in turn.
    First, the Court’s determination that a party exerted undue influence may be
    sufficient to support application of the unclean hands doctrine. 682 But as discussed
    above, Edna has failed to prove that Donna and Kimberlyn unduly influenced
    Ronald. Undue influence cannot be the basis of Edna’s unclean hands defense.
    678
    Sloan II, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *6.
    679
    See Matter of Lomax, 
    2019 WL 4955315
    , at *2–3.
    680
    Sloan II, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *6.
    681
    D.I. 119 at 35.
    682
    In re Will of Stotlar, 
    1987 WL 31646
    , at *1 (Del. Ch. Dec. 29, 1987), aff’d sub nom.
    Stotlar v. Cook, 
    542 A.2d 358
    (Del. 1988).
    106
    Second, Edna cannot use Donna and Kimberlyn’s purported breach of
    fiduciary duty as the basis for her defense. Absent some special circumstance, this
    Court has recognized that unclean hands may foreclose the claimant’s relief where
    she has breached her fiduciary duties.683 As discussed with respect to Edna’s
    undue influence claim, Donna and Kimberlyn were in a confidential relationship
    with Ronald that gave rise to fiduciary obligations: “a situation where one person
    reposes special trust in another or where a special duty exists on the part of one
    person to protect the interests of another.”684 But they have not engaged in the type
    of self-dealing that would trigger unclean hands. They did not initiate the MetLife
    Policy and Death Benefit changes; rather, Ronald decided to make those changes
    and requested his daughters’ assistance in completing the task. Further, Donna and
    Kimberlyn acted in Ronald’s best interest when assisting with the beneficiary
    changes and other paperwork, including the Five Wishes Document. No evidence
    supports a finding to the contrary.
    Finally, I reject Edna’s contention that Donna and Kimberlyn have unclean
    hands because they allegedly misled this Court by submitting the Five Wishes
    Document as JX 13, but not JX 57, with their Petition and motion for the October
    683
    Craig v. Graphic Arts Studio, Inc., 
    166 A.2d 444
    , 447 (Del. Ch. 1960).
    684
    Mitchell, 
    2009 WL 132881
    at *9 (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. AIG Life Ins. Co.,
    
    901 A.2d 106
    , 113 (Del. 2006)).
    107
    2017 TRO.685 In support, Edna makes the unsubstantiated claim that Ronald had
    no part in completing JX 13; argues that the document was improperly witnessed;
    and contends that Donna and Kimberlyn purposefully concealed JX 57 from the
    Court in October 2017 and throughout discovery. I am unconvinced that these
    grounds justify exercising my discretion to apply the unclean hands doctrine.
    Donna and Kimberlyn’s allegedly inequitable conduct with respect to the
    Five Wishes Document “must have an immediate and necessary relation to the
    claims under which relief is sought.”686 JX 13 and JX 57 are inadmissible and are,
    therefore, unnecessary to deciding the claims presented in this action. Likewise,
    JX 13 was not the sole document that Chancellor Bouchard considered when
    issuing the October 2017 TRO. To the contrary, he was greatly persuaded by the
    Statement of Wishes, drafted by Ronald’s own hand, which is consistent with
    Ronald’s intentions as supported by the preponderance of the evidence presented at
    trial. Through that document, Ronald gave Donna and Kimberly the authority to
    dispose of his remains. And although it does not specifically provide that Ronald
    wanted to be buried at the Veterans Cemetery, Donna and Kimberlyn buried him
    685
    See D.I. 119 at 35–37. Edna also contends that Donna and Kimberlyn engaged in
    inequitable conduct with respect to the MetLife Policy beneficiary change form,
    primarily contending that Ronald was entirely removed from the process and that his
    daughters commandeered his will. See
    id. at 37–39.
    For the reasons already discussed at
    length in this Opinion, Edna’s argument is unpersuasive: Ronald removed her as the
    beneficiary of the MetLife Policy and was not influenced by his daughters in doing so.
    686
    Sloan II, 
    2010 WL 2169496
    , at *6 (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).
    108
    there in accordance with his wishes. At bottom, the Five Wishes Document did
    not affect the validity of Ronald’s choices after July 30, 2017. The Five Wishes
    Document, presented at JX 13 and JX 57, was not necessary to Donna and
    Kimberlyn’s affirmative claim and therefore cannot support Edna’s unclean hands
    defense.687
    Donna and Kimberlyn deny that they misled the Court when submitting JX
    13 but not JX 57 in pursuit of the October 2017 TRO.688 There is no evidence that
    they actively concealed JX 57 from the Court, or intended to do so. I have found
    that Donna and Kimberlyn harnessed no nefarious intent when submitting JX 13 in
    this matter.689
    687
    See Matter of Lomax, 
    2019 WL 4955315
    , at *3 (“I find no direct relation, however,
    between David’s misconduct and the matter in controversy here. David’s misconduct
    does not affect the validity of the 2013 Will, the Decedent’s capacity to execute that Will,
    or whether it was a product of Robert’s undue influence. Robert, not David, took the
    Decedent to have the 2013 Will prepared. I disagree with Robert's argument that this
    litigation is directly related to David’s misconduct because it involves the Decedent’s
    assets – whether while he was living or after his death. Such claims are beyond the scope
    of this action and I decline to apply the doctrine of unclean hands, as a matter of law, or
    to recommend that the Court grant summary judgment on this issue.”).
    688
    Donna and Kimberlyn contend that Ronald signed both JX 13 and JX 57 on August 3;
    that Ronald kept JX 13 in his possession and distributed JX 57 to his doctors; and that
    accordingly, the language about his burial was added only to JX 13 after his application
    to be buried at the Veterans Cemetery was accepted. JX 57 was produced by Dr. Masters
    along with Ronald’s medical records. Donna and Kimberlyn contend that JX 57 was not
    in their possession at the time of the October 2017 TRO. See D.I. 123 at 31–32. As
    explained, both JX 13 and JX 57 suffer from inauthenticity problems, and so I do not
    make any findings of fact as to their origins.
    689
    See, e.g., Kimberlyn Tr. 617:2–9. At post-trial argument, Edna’s counsel conceded
    that the sophistication of the parties was relevant to submitting JX 13 when seeking the
    109
    Even assuming Donna and Kimberlyn intentionally withheld JX 57 while
    submitting JX 13 in October 2017, the circumstances of this case do not require me
    to invoke unclean hands. In Sloan v. Segal, this Court has declined to invoke
    unclean hands, even where a litigant misled this Court and another during estate
    proceedings, where the testator was not forced to act against her will and where
    applying unclean hands would thwart the testator’s intent.690 Rather, then-Vice
    Chancellor Strine took the deceit into account in assessing the litigant’s
    credibility.691 Here, Donna and Kimberlyn’s explanations about the Five Wishes
    Document’s execution, witnessing, date, possession, and when additional contents
    were added to JX 13 were inconsistent with the documents themselves and were
    impeached by Kimberlyn’s deposition. At bottom, Donna and Kimberlyn lacked
    credibility with respect to the Five Wishes Document.            I have accordingly
    discounted their testimony about that document in my factual findings, resulting in
    a determination that both JX 13 and JX 57 are inadmissible.692
    JX 57 was ultimately produced in discovery by Dr. Masters, and Edna had
    ample opportunity to use JX 57 in this litigation. Indeed, she effectively teased out
    October 2017 TRO. See D.I. 132 at 64:7–10 (“They were unsophisticated. They did the
    best they could. That may explain October 10, 2017. That’s the date the petition was
    filed.”).
    690
    See Sloan I, 
    2009 WL 1204494
    , at *17–18.
    691
    Id. 692 Id.
    at *18.
    110
    the problems with JX 57 together with JX 13, leading to JX 13’s exclusion as
    inadmissible. Where no harm resulted from JX 13 or JX 57, and absent clear
    evidence that Donna and Kimberlyn misled the Court in October 2017, I decline to
    exercise my discretion to apply unclean hands. Consequently, I do not agree that
    Donna and Kimberlyn’s conduct is “so repugnant that the court must automatically
    deny” them a declaratory judgment in their favor.693
    At bottom, “[t]his court has broad leeway in exercising its equitable
    judgment under this maxim, and is not bound by formula or restrained by any
    limitation that tends to trammel the free and just exercise of discretion.”694 In my
    view, applying the doctrine of unclean hands by his daughters to frustrate Ronald’s
    intentions would be supremely inequitable.695 Throughout this narrative, Ronald’s
    daughters fiercely adhered to his wishes. They have come to this Court with the
    intent of allowing their father to rest in peace. The doors of this Court will not be
    shut against them in their efforts to effectuate Ronald’s wishes; any other result
    would be inequitable.
    693
    Id. 694 In
    re Barker Tr. Agreement, 
    2007 WL 1800645
    , at *11 (internal quotation marks
    omitted) (quoting 
    Nakahara, 718 A.2d at 522
    ).
    695
    See Sloan I, 
    2009 WL 1204494
    , at *18.
    111
    E.     The Parties Shall Bear Their Own Costs And Fees.
    Both parties contend they are entitled to costs and fees in bringing this
    action. Delaware courts generally follow the American Rule, which holds litigants
    responsible for their own costs and fees.696             “Under the American Rule and
    Delaware law, litigants are normally responsible for paying their own litigation
    costs.”697 The Court recognizes an exception to this rule where a party has acted in
    bad faith.698 “Delaware courts have previously awarded attorneys’ fees where (for
    example) parties have unnecessarily prolonged or delayed litigation, falsified
    records or knowingly asserted frivolous claims.”699 “Ultimately, the bad faith
    exception is applied in extraordinary circumstances primarily to deter abusive
    litigation and protect the integrity of the judicial process.”700 A lesser breach of
    fiduciary duty alone will not merit departing from the American Rule.701
    Here, neither party’s conduct rises to the level of bad faith requisite to justify
    fee-shifting. Donna and Kimberlyn brought their claims in good faith, and there is
    696
    See, e.g., Mahani v. Edix Media Gp., Inc., 
    935 A.2d 242
    , 245 (Del. 2007).
    697
    Id. 698 Marra
    v. Brandywine Sch. Dist., 
    2012 WL 4847083
    , at *4 (Del. Ch. Sept. 28, 2012);
    see also Estate of Carpenter v. Dinneen, 
    2008 WL 859309
    , at *17 (Del. Ch. Mar. 6,
    2008).
    699
    Montgomery Cellular Hldg. Co. v. Dobler, 
    880 A.2d 206
    , 227 (Del. 2005) (internal
    quotation marks omitted) (quoting Johnston v. Arbitrium (Cayman Is.) Handels AG, 
    720 A.2d 542
    , 546 (Del. 1998)).
    700
    Nichols v. Chrysler Gp., LLC, 
    2010 WL 5549048
    , at *3 (Del. Ch. Dec. 29, 2010).
    701
    See HMG/Courtland Props., Inc. v. Gray, 
    749 A.2d 94
    , 124–25 (Del. Ch. 1999).
    112
    no evidence that they unduly influenced Ronald, engaged in fraud, or breached
    their fiduciary duties. And although Edna has not prevailed in this action, Donna
    and Kimberlyn have not offered evidence that Edna “unnecessarily prolonged or
    delayed litigation, falsified records or knowingly asserted frivolous claims.”702
    The parties must bear their respective costs and fees in accordance with the
    American rule.
    III.   CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs on all
    counts. Ronald shall remain buried peacefully in the Veterans Cemetery, his final
    resting place, and the MetLife Policy proceeds shall be distributed to Plaintiffs.
    The parties shall submit a stipulated implementing order within twenty days.
    702
    Montgomery 
    Cellular, 880 A.2d at 227
    (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
    Johnston v. Arbitrium (Cayman Is.) Handels AG, 
    720 A.2d 542
    , 546 (Del. 1998)). Under
    the circumstances of this case, my conclusion holds true even despite my finding that
    Edna forged Ronald’s signature on JX 53.
    113