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 she could not sign her own hospice consent forms.

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

Her original will, executed in 1998, was notarized and witnessed by three individuals. It gave her daughter a life estate in the property, allowing her to live there, 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 original arrangement also explains why the change went undiscovered. Her grandson did not expect to take possession of the property until after Patricia’s daughter died. He had no reason to believe the estate plan his grandmother had personally described to him had been changed.

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. She also operates an assisted living facility, where families entrust her with protecting elderly and vulnerable adults.

The same person trusted to recognize and guard against exploitation helped validate a change that financially benefited her own household. That makes her judgment here a concern for every family relying on her to protect someone they love.

The second witness was the partner’s cousin, an attorney and a close friend of the beneficiary.

Her legal training should have made the significance of her participation unmistakable. A witness’s signature helps give credibility to a document that will speak for someone after death. She lent that credibility to a change benefiting her own friend and cousin’s household.

An elder-care professional and an attorney should understand why a dying person’s wishes require protection from other people’s interests. Their professional knowledge makes these personal conflicts more troubling.

What happened after Patricia’s death demands scrutiny as well.

Patricia’s daughter also served as the estate’s personal representative—a fiduciary legally responsible for administering the estate fairly and supplying the information needed to notify interested persons.

In sworn probate filings, she listed her own address as the residence of the adult grandson the codicil had removed.

He did not live there.

That sworn misstatement raises concerns of perjury and breach of fiduciary duty.

His certified notice was returned UNCLAIMED, and the estate proceeded without him knowing the codicil existed or having a meaningful opportunity to challenge it.

It was a closed loop: the same daughter was Patricia’s primary caregiver while she was dying, signed her hospice paperwork as her surrogate, benefited from a codicil witnessed by her partner and close friend, 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, certified-mail records, and other official documents.

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

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

Willful or corrupt alteration or impairment of a will or codicil — § 8-701: Conduct that can defeat, injure, or change another person’s estate or legal rights.

Counterfeiting a will or codicil — § 8-601: Creating, causing, or willingly assisting in the creation of a counterfeit testamentary document with fraudulent intent.

Presenting a counterfeit document as genuine — § 8-602: Putting a counterfeit will or codicil forward as authentic with fraudulent intent.

Financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult — § 8-801: Obtaining a vulnerable adult’s or qualifying older person’s property through prohibited means, including deception, with intent to deprive that person of it.

Theft by deception — § 7-104(b): Using deception to obtain control of property with intent to deprive its owner.

Perjury — § 9-101: Willfully swearing falsely about a material fact in circumstances covered by the statute, including qualifying affidavits.

Obstruction of justice — § 9-306: Corruptly obstructing, impeding, or attempting to interfere with the administration of justice in a Maryland court.

These laws protect the authenticity of testamentary documents, vulnerable adults’ control over their property, and the integrity of court proceedings. Accountability requires examining both how this codicil came into existence and how it was used afterward.

But the damage reaches far beyond the property.

Patricia was my grandmother. She helped raise me. I lived with her part-time.

She personally told me what she intended. I trusted her, and her estate plan reflected what she had told me.

If the codicil truly reflected her wishes, I am left confronting something more painful than losing an inheritance: that the woman I loved and trusted chose, at the very end, to erase me from the plan she had told me would protect me.

That leaves me questioning her promises, my place in her life, and the relationship I believed we had.

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

The damage reaches backward into a lifetime of memories. I am forced to question whether the rejection was hers or whether someone made it speak for her.

My grandmother is dead. She cannot answer me. The people involved have refused to answer my questions and ultimately blocked me.

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. Serious evidence that a dying person’s wishes may have been overridden demands answers and accountability.

We are asking the 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.