Dwight Green v. James Green
389 P.3d 961
Idaho2017Background
- Ralph and Jeanne Green formed Green Family Enterprises, which held valuable lakefront property; they created a revocable trust in 1998 to hold 60% of the corporation with equal distribution to their five children on death.
- Over time family disputes arose about leases and conservation easements; James (one child) served on the corporation’s board and had closer contact with parents than some siblings.
- Attorneys Wallace and others drafted successive Trust amendments; the Sixth Amendment (prepared at Ralph and Jeanne’s request) changed disposition to leave the entire Trust to James, disinheriting the other children.
- Siblings sued in 2013 alleging the Sixth Amendment was procured by James’s undue influence; James moved for summary judgment and the district court struck plaintiffs’ expert affidavit and granted judgment for James.
- The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed de novo the summary judgment standard and reviewed the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sixth Amendment was procured by undue influence | Siblings: James had opportunity and disposition to influence (closer contact, board position) and the result (disinheritance) shows undue influence | James: Amendments were prepared by independent counsel at parents’ request; no factual support tying James to influence; expert affidavit was conclusory | Court held: No genuine issue of material fact that James had opportunity to exert undue influence; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether a presumption of undue influence arose from James’s fiduciary role | Siblings: James’s role as director/ fiduciary and beneficiary should trigger rebuttable presumption | James: No nexus between corporate fiduciary role and the donative act of amending the Trust | Court held: No presumption applied—plaintiffs failed to show connection between fiduciary role and Trust execution |
| Admissibility of plaintiffs’ expert (Dr. Blum) affidavit | Siblings: Blum reviewed record and his opinion supports undue influence | James: Blum’s affidavit is conclusory and fails to identify facts supporting his opinion | Court held: Trial court did not abuse discretion striking Blum’s affidavit for lack of identified factual basis |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Siblings: Circumstantial evidence and expert create triable issues | James: Evidence insufficient; attorneys drafted amendments at parents’ request; no specific facts of influence | Court held: Summary judgment proper—no genuine factual dispute on key undue-influence element (opportunity) |
Key Cases Cited
- Quamada v. Arizmendez, 153 Idaho 609 (addresses standard of review for summary judgment)
- J-U-B Engineers, Inc. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 146 Idaho 311 (expert opinions must identify specific factual basis; abuse-of-discretion review for admissibility)
- Gmeiner v. Yacte, 100 Idaho 1 (four-part undue influence test)
- In re Estate of Conway, 152 Idaho 933 (rebuttable presumption of undue influence where beneficiary is fiduciary)
- In re Estate of Roll, 115 Idaho 797 (explains rebuttal burden once presumption applies)