519 P.3d 439
Idaho2022Background
- Donald and Marjorie Woodfin created a revocable Woodfin Family Trust in 1999 that provided $100,000 special bequests to Donald’s children (Kathy Gestner and Ray Woodfin) and divided residuary equally among the four children.
- Marjorie amended the trust several times; by 2010 Kathy and Ray’s special bequests had been reduced to $100,000 each.
- Marjorie (diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017) moved in with her daughter Julie Divine in 2013; Julie assisted with transportation, care, became a joint bank account holder, and performed online banking/transfers.
- Attorney Robert Green met with Marjorie in Aug. 2017 (alone) and used a detailed capacity worksheet, concluding Marjorie’s capacity was intact but noting the potential for undue influence by Julie; Green met again with Marjorie (excluding Julie) on May 29, 2018.
- On May 29, 2018, Marjorie signed an amendment eliminating Kathy and Ray as beneficiaries and naming Julie the sole remainder beneficiary; Marjorie died Oct. 12, 2018 with the trust holding > $450,000.
- Kathy and Ray sued to void the 2018 amendment for undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity; the district court found Marjorie had capacity and the amendment was not a product of undue influence. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gestner/Woodfin) | Defendant's Argument (Divine) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Testamentary capacity | Marjorie lacked capacity (misstated estate value, on pain meds, no new capacity worksheet in 2018) | Green’s worksheet and testimony, plus witnesses, show Marjorie had capacity | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports district court finding of capacity |
| 2. Presumption of undue influence | A presumption applies because Julie was a caregiver/beneficiary in a confidential/fiduciary relationship | No fiduciary nexus to trigger presumption; facts do not establish confidential/dominant–subservient relationship | Court adopts Restatement comment f presumption but finds no confidential relationship here; no presumption applied |
| 3. Undue influence (elements) | Plaintiffs say all four elements are met (susceptibility, opportunity, disposition, suspicious result) | Julie argues evidence does not prove the elements; attorney Green met alone with Marjorie and advised her | Affirmed: plaintiffs failed to prove susceptibility and disposition; opportunity conceded but whole claim fails |
| 4. Breach of fiduciary duty & fees | Plaintiffs assert Julie breached fiduciary duties and seek fees | Julie: claim not pled; no duties owed to plaintiffs after amendment; fees not timely argued on appeal | Breach claim waived (not properly pleaded/litigated); appellate attorney-fee requests denied; costs to Julie on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Green, 161 Idaho 675, 389 P.3d 961 (2017) (sets forth undue-influence framework and presumption when beneficiary is fiduciary)
- In re Estate of Smith, 164 Idaho 457, 432 P.3d 6 (2018) (discusses susceptibility and suspicious-results inquiry)
- Nelson v. Nelson, 170 Idaho 102, 508 P.3d 301 (2022) (discusses Restatement comment f and confidential-relationship presumption)
- Gmeiner v. Yacte, 100 Idaho 1, 592 P.2d 57 (1979) (opportunity to exert influence, e.g., cohabitation)
- King v. MacDonald, 90 Idaho 272, 410 P.2d 969 (1965) (factors for susceptibility and undue influence analysis)
- In re Heazle’s Estate, 74 Idaho 72, 257 P.2d 556 (1953) (testamentary-capacity standard)
- In re Estate of Conway, 152 Idaho 933, 277 P.3d 380 (2012) (presumption-of-undue-influence context)