Bill & Dena Brown Trust v. Garcia
312 Mich. App. 684
Mich. Ct. App.2015Background
- Bill and Dena Brown created an irrevocable living trust (2007) and jointly owned real property as trustees; Dena died in 2008, leaving Bill as surviving settlor-trustee.
- On February 10, 2012, Bill (as surviving settlor-trustee) executed a Lady Bird quitclaim deed conveying the Airport Road property to himself with a remainder to Geri Garcia if he did not otherwise dispose of it; he also executed a will naming Garcia as beneficiary and personal representative and gave Garcia powers of attorney.
- Mark Brown (successor trustee) sued to quiet title, arguing the Lady Bird deed was unauthorized by the trust and effectively revoked trust property; he later alleged Garcia unduly influenced Bill to execute the deed and will.
- Trial court granted summary disposition to Garcia, ruling the trust expressly authorized the surviving settlor-trustee to self-deal and to execute instruments like the Lady Bird deed, and later granted summary disposition on undue-influence grounds for lack of evidence and lack of a confidential/fiduciary relationship before the challenged acts.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed: the trust’s plain terms authorized Bill’s actions and plaintiff failed to produce evidence raising a genuine issue of undue influence or triggering the presumption of undue influence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trust authorized Bill (surviving settlor-trustee) to convey trust realty to himself via a Lady Bird deed | Brown: deed contradicted trust purpose and effectively revoked/removed property from trust beneficiaries; surviving settlor lacked unilateral authority to remove trust assets | Garcia: trust expressly authorized settlor-trustee powers including self-dealing, dealing in real property, distributions in kind, and execution of instruments to effect those powers | Court: Held trust’s plain terms (Article VII, etc.) authorized Bill to execute the Lady Bird deed; deed did not amend or revoke the trust; summary disposition for defendant affirmed |
| Whether Garcia unduly influenced Bill in executing the deed and will; and whether a presumption of undue influence arose | Brown: Garcia exercised undue influence and, by receiving powers of attorney and benefits, a confidential/fiduciary relationship existed that should give rise to a presumption of undue influence | Garcia: No evidence of threats, coercion, or influence; contemporaneous witnesses and documentary evidence show Bill acted voluntarily; no pre-existing confidential/fiduciary relationship to trigger presumption | Court: Held plaintiff presented no evidence of undue influence; no fiduciary/confidential relationship existed prior to documents to invoke presumption; even if presumption applied, evidence rebutted it; summary disposition for defendant affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (standards for MCR 2.116(C)(10) summary-disposition review)
- In re Raymond Estate, 483 Mich 48 (trusts construed according to settlor's intent; read instrument as whole)
- Kar v. Hogan, 399 Mich 529 (elements and burden rules for undue-influence claims and presumption)
- Leix Estate, 289 Mich App 574 (survivor’s lifetime transfers not restricted absent specific estate-document limitations)
- In re Herbert Trust, 303 Mich App 456 (de novo review of trust-interpretation issues)