A recent decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals illustrates how the presumption of undue influence operates in a will contest when there is no eyewitness evidence of undue influence. In re Jones Estate, 2024 WL 5198621 (Mich Ct App Dec 20, 2024) (unpublished).
Helen and her husband Henry Sr. (“Senior”) had five children, including Henry Jr. (“Junior”). According to the opinion, Junior was a convicted felon, and Senior barred Junior from the marital home for many years because of his history of violence and abuse against Helen. Under her 1984 will, Helen left her estate to Senior, if he survived her, and otherwise to all five children equally. After Senior died in 2016, Junior moved into the marital home with Helen in 2017. In 2018, Junior took Helen to see an attorney and sign a new will. Under the 2018 will, Helen specifically gifted her home to Junior, with the remaining assets passing to all five children. After Helen died, her other children petitioned the probate court to find that the 2018 will was invalid due to Junior’s undue influence over Helen.
Under Michigan law, one contesting the validity of a will may either offer direct or circumstantial evidence that undue influence occurred. A presumption of undue influence will arise based on evidence that (1) the alleged influencer and alleged victim were in a fiduciary or confidential relationship, (2) the alleged influencer received a benefit from a legal instrument made by the alleged victim and (3) the alleged influencer had the opportunity to influence the alleged victim’s decision in making the legal instrument. If the presumption of undue influence is established, then the alleged influencer must offer evidence rebutting (disproving) that the legal instrument resulted from undue influence. If the alleged influencer fails to rebut the presumption, then undue influence is taken as proven, and the legal instrument will be set aside.
Here, the probate court found that (1) Helen’s other children established the presumption of undue influence, (2) Junior failed to rebut the presumption and (3) the 2018 will was the result of Junior’s undue influence over Helen and therefore invalid.
Junior appealed, first arguing that he was not in a fiduciary or confidential relationship with Helen, so the presumption of undue influence could not arise. The Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that the evidence showed that Junior was Helen’s live-in caretaker at the time she signed the 2018 will. Junior had testified that “Helen had relied on him extensively for her day-to-day activities. He cooked her meals, washed her clothes, washed her feet, shopped for groceries, occasionally took her to medical appointments and picked up her prescriptions, monitored her mediations, and had access to her debit card to use if they ‘needed something’ like groceries. ... By [Junior’s] own testimony, it is clear that he served as, and understood himself to be, Helen’s caregiver.” Id at *2. The appellate court found that this evidence was sufficient to establish that a “fiduciary or confidential” relationship existed between Junior and Helen. “[T]here was confidence reposed on one side and the resulting superiority and influence on the other.” Id (internal quotation omitted).
Junior next argued that if there was a presumption of undue influence, he had rebutted it by his and the drafting attorney’s testimony that the 2018 will reflected Helen’s free will. Again, the appellate court disagreed. As for Junior’s testimony, “the probate court found [Junior’s siblings] to be more credible than” him. Id at *3, n 1. As for the attorney’s testimony, “[t]he record demonstrates that, in the short amount of time she spent with Helen and [Junior], the attorney did not delve deep into Helen’s situation. Indeed, the attorney lacked important information regarding Helen’s mental health diagnoses and treatments, was unaware that Helen had an earlier will, and did not know” that Junior was a felon who had only recently come to live with Helen. Id at *3. The appellate court further noted that Junior’s siblings had offered evidence establishing that Helen was vulnerable to influence: after making the 2018 will, Helen had left her own home due to fear of Junior, and Helen expressed regret that she had signed the 2018 will. Id. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s ruling that the 2018 will was invalid due to Junior’s undue influence.
It should be emphasized that Junior’s siblings prevailed even though they did not have direct evidence of undue influence — e.g., eyewitness testimony of Junior unduly influencing Helen. Undue influence is a real phenomenon, but it is difficult to prove with direct evidence because of the fact that undue influence, when it occurs, occurs in secret with no eyewitnesses present. As a result, Michigan law allows undue influence to be proven with circumstantial evidence and the presumption.
