Nine days before Patricia Wickers died in home hospice, a codicil appeared that overturned the estate plan she had maintained for fifteen years.

Patricia was dying from end-stage COPD, respiratory failure, and hypoxia. She required oxygen and was receiving morphine, Ativan, and Haldol. Her condition had deteriorated to the point that her daughter signed her hospice consent forms for her and agreed to liquid morphine on her behalf. Three weeks later, she supposedly signed a document herself that overturned her entire estate plan.

Yet we are asked to accept that, in this condition, Patricia understood and freely chose to overturn her long-standing estate plan and remove her only grandson.

Her original will, executed in 1998, was notarized and witnessed by three individuals. It gave her daughter a life estate, allowing her to live in the property, rent it, and receive its benefit throughout her lifetime. After her daughter's death, the property would pass to Patricia's only grandson.

Her daughter was already protected for life.

The codicil converted that lifetime protection into complete ownership and eliminated her grandson's remainder interest.

The codicil was not notarized. It referred to a 2009 will that did not exist, misspelled the beneficiary's name, and bore a signature inconsistent with Patricia's verified signature on her original will.

Neither witness was independent of the beneficiary.

One was the beneficiary's partner, now spouse. The second was the partner's cousin, and close friend of the beneficiary.

What happened after Patricia's death demands equal scrutiny.

Patricia's daughter also served as the estate's personal representative, legally responsible for administering the estate fairly and notifying interested persons.

In a probate filing signed under penalty of perjury, she listed her own address as the residence of the adult grandson the codicil had removed.

He did not live there.

She was nevertheless able to reach him to obtain his signature on a Consent to Modified Administration.

His certified probate notice was sent to her address and returned UNCLAIMED. No further efforts to locate or notify him were documented.

His correct address later appeared only for correspondence concerning the estate's closing, after the deadline to challenge the codicil had expired.

The same daughter was Patricia's primary caregiver, benefited from a codicil witnessed by people close to her, and administered the estate while the excluded grandson remained uninformed.

These circumstances are documented in Patricia's medical records, her original will, the codicil, sworn probate filings, and certified-mail records.

The case passed through multiple layers of law enforcement, including consultation with a Deputy State’s Attorney, before being reassigned to the Criminal Investigations Division. After completing his investigation, the assigned detective formally referred the case to the Anne Arundel County State’s Attorney’s Office for prosecutorial review.

We are asking prosecutors to examine the full course of conduct under Maryland criminal laws, including:

• Financial exploitation of an older or vulnerable adult (§ 8-801)
• Perjury (§ 9-101) and obstruction of justice (§ 9-306)
• Counterfeiting or presenting fraudulent testamentary documents (§§ 8-601 and 8-602)
• Offenses involving testamentary instruments (§ 8-701) and theft by deception (§ 7-104(b))

These laws exist to protect vulnerable people, the authenticity of their final wishes, and the integrity of court proceedings.

But the damage reaches far beyond the property.

Patricia helped raise her grandson. He lived with her part-time. She personally told him what she intended, and her original will reflected those promises.

If the codicil truly reflected Patricia's wishes, her grandson is left confronting the possibility that the grandmother he loved and trusted chose, at the very end, to remove him from the estate plan she had described to him.

And if it was not her decision, someone used her name and her supposed final wishes to inflict that same wound, leaving him to carry it as though it came from her.

The damage reaches backward into a lifetime of memories. He is left questioning whether the rejection was hers or whether someone made it speak for her.

Patricia is dead. She cannot answer. The people involved have refused to answer his questions and ultimately blocked him.

They are still here to explain what happened. She is not.

No one had the right to substitute their wishes for hers, use her final days to secure a benefit she did not freely choose, or leave her grandson bearing the pain of a rejection she may never have intended.

Every family should be able to trust that a loved one's vulnerability will not become someone else's opportunity.

We are asking the Anne Arundel County State's Attorney's Office to complete its review, communicate its decision, and bring every criminal charge supported by the evidence.

Sign this petition because vulnerable adults deserve protection when they are least able to protect themselves.

Sign it because a dying person's name must never be used to carry out someone else's wishes.

Patricia's wishes, decisions, and voice belonged to Patricia. Her death must not end the demand to establish whether they were respected.