The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court on a variety of grounds, including that it had properly denied a conservator’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on his stepbrother’s fraud claim, finding that his stepbrother had justifiably and reasonably relied on the conservator’s misrepresentations about the account where his inherited share of his deceased father’s retirement account was held. Jeffrey v. Townsend, No. 24-2539, No. 24-2621 (8th Cir. Jan. 22, 2026).
Richard and Patti Jeffery were married in 2005. They both had sons from prior relationships: Rich was Richard’s son, and Tim was Patti’s son. Richard had an E*Trade account for his individual retirement account, and he listed Rich and Patti as the primary death beneficiaries, with Rich having a 75 percent interest and Patti having a 25 percent interest.
Richard was diagnosed with mild dementia in 2019, and he granted Tim a power of attorney for the E*Trade account in 2020 because he did not feel comfortable managing his finances. In August 2021, Tim filed a petition in court to become Richard’s conservator and was appointed in September 2021. Rich was never notified about Tim’s petition or appointment.
In December 2021, Tim withdrew $25,000 from the account and deposited it into a conservatorship account. As Richard’s conservator, Tim applied for an account with a wealth management company called AssetMark. On January 12, 2022, Tim withdrew $83,713—Richard’s required minimum distribution—from the E*Trade account and deposited it in the conservatorship account.
Richard’s health declined, and he died on January 15, 2022. On January 19, 2022, AssetMark approved Tim’s application. Tim requested a transfer of all remaining funds from the E*Trade account to the AssetMark account but did not tell Rich about the transfer. Between January 19 and February 5, 2022, Tim told Rich that the funds from Richard’s account were unavailable, but sent a screenshot of the E*Trade account balance and an E*Trade beneficiary distribution request form.
In March 2022, Tim contacted a financial planner about the allocation of the funds held in the AssetMark account. The financial planner left a phone message for Rich, but Rich did not recognize the caller and did not return the call. In April 2022, Rich called E*Trade to check the account balance and was informed about the withdrawal and transfer. He was not able to access his share of the funds until June 10, 2022.
Rich filed a lawsuit against Tim and Patti, alleging that they had improperly handled his inherited share of his father’s assets and that the value of the account had declined during the period when he had been unable to access his inherited share of the account. The jury found in his favor on his fraud and conversion claims against Tim and his unjust enrichment claim against Tim and Patti, but it ruled against him on his conversion and other claims.
Both Rich and Tim appealed.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Rich’s assertion that the district court had erred in not instructing the jury on undue influence: Rich argued that evidence showed that Tim had unduly influenced Richard to engage in certain transactions, including the withdrawals from the E*Trade account. The court found that the district court had not abused its discretion because Tim, as Richard’s conservator, not Richard, had engaged in the financial transactions at issue; thus, the elements of undue influence had not been established. Further, the court found that the district court had not erred in finding that the jury had awarded duplicative damages on Rich’s unjust enrichment and conversion claims because both awards were based on Tim’s January 2022 withdrawal of $83,713 from the E*Trade account.
On Tim’s cross-appeal, the court rejected Tim’s argument that the district court had erred in denying his motion for judgment as a matter of law on Rich’s fraud claim, ruling that a reasonable jury could find that Rich was justified in relying upon Tim’s representations regarding where the funds were held and that his reliance was reasonable under the circumstances. Further, the court disagreed with Tim’s argument that the record did not support the jury’s damage award: Because the only evidence presented at trial regarding the loss in value of the account was measured by months instead of only the loss in value prior to June 10, 2022, which was the date Rich took control of his share of the funds, the jury’s award of damages based on the decline in the value of the AssetMark account from May through June 2022 was not speculative.
The court affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
