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. The codicil placed full control of the property in the same household as the witness who helped validate it.

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, suffering from severe oxygen deprivation, 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.

An attorney should understand the seriousness of signing a legal document that changes a dying person’s long-standing estate plan. Instead, she signed off on a codicil 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.

Someone with legal training should have recognized that these circumstances demanded greater care, greater independence, and greater scrutiny.

Instead, one witness directly shared in the household that gained from the codicil. The other was a close relative and personal associate of that same household. Together, they supplied the signatures that gave the document its 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.

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

At the center of this case is something no legal citation can fully capture.

A dying woman’s name was used to erase someone she had protected for fifteen years.

That erasure did not only affect property. It changed the meaning of Patricia’s final wishes. It left behind a document that appeared to say Patricia had deliberately chosen to withdraw the protection she had maintained for her grandson for fifteen years, and she died before she could ever confirm, deny, or explain that decision.

That is the cruelty of what happened.

When someone dies, the people who loved them are left with their words, their choices, and the life they shared. Those things should not be rewritten by the people who stand to gain from the rewriting.

Imagine discovering that, in the final days of someone you loved, a document appeared claiming they had chosen to remove you from the future they had promised you. Imagine having to live with that document after they were gone, knowing they could never tell you whether it was truly theirs.

No one should have to carry that.

Patricia’s voice belonged to Patricia. Her love, her intentions, and her final wishes were not anyone else’s to alter, claim, or use.

Sign this petition because a dying person’s silence should never become someone else’s power.

Sign it because no family should be forced to live with an erasure written in the name of someone they loved.

And sign it because what happened to Patricia should matter to all of us.