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

At the time, Patricia was dying from end-stage COPD, respiratory failure, and hypoxia. She required oxygen and was receiving morphine, Ativan, and Haldol. She was so weak and medically compromised that she could not sign her own hospice consent forms.

Yet this codicil claimed that Patricia was capable of knowingly and voluntarily making one of the most consequential legal decisions of her life.

Her original will, executed in 1998, was clear, notarized, and witnessed by three neutral individuals. It gave her daughter a life estate in the property, allowing her to live there, rent it, and receive its full benefit for the rest of her life. After her daughter’s death, the property would pass to Patricia’s only grandson.

Her daughter was already protected for life.

The codicil did not preserve a right she otherwise would have lost. It converted her life estate into complete ownership and eliminated the protection Patricia had created for her grandson.

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

Its witnesses were not independent.

One witness was the beneficiary’s partner, now spouse. Her household directly benefited when the life estate became unrestricted ownership. Property Patricia had directed to pass to her grandson instead became controlled entirely by the household in which this witness lived.

That same witness operates an assisted living facility.

A person professionally entrusted with the care of elderly and vulnerable adults participated in validating a last-minute estate change involving a dying hospice patient who was heavily medicated, deprived of oxygen, and unable to sign her own medical paperwork.

That should concern every family that has ever trusted another person or facility to protect someone they love.

The second witness was the partner’s cousin, a close personal associate of the beneficiary’s household and an attorney by profession.

She was not Patricia’s attorney. She did not provide Patricia with independent legal advice or represent Patricia’s interests. Yet she witnessed a document that benefited a household to which she was personally connected, referred to a nonexistent will, misspelled the beneficiary’s name, removed Patricia’s grandson, and carried a disputed signature.

The people connected to the household that gained from the codicil were also the people who gave it the appearance of legitimacy.

What happened after Patricia’s death raises further serious concerns.

In sworn probate filings, Patricia’s daughter listed her own address as the residence of the adult grandson who had been removed from the estate plan.

He did not live there.

Official notice intended for him was therefore mailed directly into the household benefiting from his removal. He never received it. The certified notice was returned unclaimed, yet the estate proceeded without him knowing that the codicil existed.

The only person removed from Patricia’s original estate plan was denied meaningful notice that the document removing him had been filed. He lost the opportunity to challenge it while the people benefiting from the change controlled the address, the notice, and the information surrounding the probate process.

These facts are documented in Patricia’s medical records, her original will, the codicil, sworn probate filings, certified-mail records, and other official documents.

The police reviewed the evidence, found probable cause, and referred the case to the State’s Attorney’s Office.

The evidence raises potential violations of multiple Maryland criminal statutes, each addressing a different stage of the conduct:

Willfully or corruptly altering a will or codicil, Maryland Criminal Law § 8-701: Prohibits altering or impairing a will or codicil when another person’s legal rights may be defeated, injured, or changed. A conviction carries three to seven years of imprisonment.

Counterfeiting a will or codicil, Maryland Criminal Law § 8-601: Prohibits counterfeiting, causing the counterfeiting of, or knowingly assisting in counterfeiting a will or codicil with intent to defraud. It is a felony carrying up to ten years of imprisonment.

Presenting a counterfeit will or codicil as genuine, Maryland Criminal Law § 8-602: Prohibits issuing or publishing a counterfeit document as authentic with intent to defraud. It is a felony carrying up to ten years of imprisonment.

Financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult or person age 68 or older, Maryland Criminal Law § 8-801: Prohibits obtaining property through deception, intimidation, or undue influence with intent to deprive the individual of it. At the highest felony tier, the offense carries up to twenty years of imprisonment, and Maryland permits a sentence under this statute to be imposed in addition to a sentence for another crime arising from the same conduct.

Theft by deception, Maryland Criminal Law § 7-104(b): Prohibits knowingly obtaining control of another person’s property through deception with intent to deprive the owner of it. At the highest felony tier, the offense carries up to twenty years of imprisonment.

Perjury, Maryland Criminal Law § 9-101: Prohibits willfully making a materially false statement under oath, including in an affidavit intended to influence a court or public official. A conviction carries up to ten years of imprisonment.

Obstruction of justice, Maryland Criminal Law § 9-306: Prohibits using corrupt means to obstruct or impede the administration of justice in a Maryland court. A conviction carries up to five years of imprisonment.

These are not different labels for one paperwork mistake. They protect separate interests: the authenticity of Patricia’s will, her right to control her own property, the honesty of sworn court filings, the integrity of the probate process, and the right of an affected person to receive notice and challenge what was done.

The evidence describes conduct at multiple stages: the creation or alteration of the codicil, its presentation as Patricia’s authentic act, the transfer of control through that document, the submission of false information under oath, and the diversion of notice from the person whose rights had been removed.

At the center of all of it is Patricia.

While she was dying and unable to protect her own legal interests, a deeply compromised document appeared in her name, witnessed by people connected to the household that benefited from it. Patricia died nine days later, leaving no opportunity to confirm the sudden change or challenge what had been done in her name.

The codicil remained, speaking for her after she no longer could.

The police investigation has already occurred. Probable cause was found, and the case was referred for prosecutorial review.

We are asking the State’s Attorney’s Office to complete that review, communicate its decision, and bring every charge supported by the evidence.

This case also exposes a dangerous weakness in the system. A dying person’s long-standing estate plan was replaced without independent legal representation, neutral witnesses, meaningful medical scrutiny, or safeguards strong enough to ensure that the person removed from the plan actually received notice.

By the time questions were raised, Patricia was gone. She could not defend her signature or object to the people speaking in her name.

A dying person should not become the easiest person to silence.

Patricia had the right to remain the author of her own final wishes. Her illness did not erase that right, and her death does not make what happened less serious.

Sign this petition if you believe dying and vulnerable adults deserve protection, suspicious deathbed estate changes must receive serious scrutiny, probate safeguards must protect the person whose voice is at stake, and no one should be permitted to replace another person’s final wishes for personal gain.