Graham v. Underwood
2017 Ark. App. 498
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Samuel (Sam) Ludington executed a revocable living trust in 2006 leaving equal shares to daughters Laura Graham and Lana Underwood if his wife predeceased him; he later amended the trust in 2013–2014 to give significant assets (company stock, apartment sale proceeds) to Underwood and to create trusts for Graham and Graham’s children.
- Elizabeth (Sam’s wife) died suddenly August 22, 2013; Sam executed trust amendments July 31, 2013, December 19, 2013, and January 2, 2014; Sam died April 3, 2014.
- Graham sued Underwood (May 2015) to cancel the amendments, alleging Underwood unduly influenced Sam after Elizabeth’s death to reroute his estate largely in Underwood’s favor.
- Underwood moved for summary judgment, attaching depositions; Graham opposed with depositions, memos from Sam’s attorney, and affidavits from Don and Debbie Bradshaw; a hearing was held May 4, 2016.
- After the hearing Graham sought one-week leave to supplement; later-filed Bradshaw affidavits (May 20, 2016) were struck as untimely by the trial court; the court granted summary judgment for Underwood; Graham appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Graham) | Defendant's Argument (Underwood) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether untimely affidavits should be admitted | Bradshaw affidavits contained newly discovered, credibility-related evidence contradicting depositions and should be allowed | Affidavits were untimely filed after the one-week extension and should be struck | Trial court did not abuse discretion in striking the affidavits (untimely) |
| Whether amendments were the product of undue influence | Underwood unduly influenced Sam during his grief and isolated him, causing the changes | No specific acts of coercion; Sam wanted Underwood to run business; witnesses saw no undue influence | No genuine issue of material fact on undue influence; summary judgment proper |
| Whether a confidential relationship created a presumption of undue influence | Underwood’s close, daily contact with Sam and role in his businesses established a confidential relationship | Relationship was familial and businesslike but not one of legal control or domination; Underwood rebutted any presumption | Court found no confidential relationship; alternatively, even if one existed, Underwood rebutted the presumption |
| Whether plaintiff met her burden to survive summary judgment | Graham failed to "meet proof with proof" — she offered speculation, general affidavits, and memos that did not show specific coercive acts | Underwood showed absence of factual dispute and entitlement to judgment; depositions confirmed lack of evidence of undue influence | Graham failed to present specific facts creating a material factual dispute; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lagios v. Goldman, 483 S.W.3d 810 (Ark. 2016) (trial-court discretion to reopen and control proceedings)
- Anderson v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 450 S.W.3d 251 (Ark. App. 2014) (summary-judgment standards and review)
- Harbur v. O’Neal, 432 S.W.3d 651 (Ark. App. 2014) (capacity and undue-influence test for trusts follows wills)
- Pyle v. Sayers, 39 S.W.3d 774 (Ark. 2001) (testator’s right to dispose of property; burden to prove lack of capacity or undue influence)
- Breckenridge v. Breckenridge, 375 S.W.3d 651 (Ark. App. 2010) (confidential-relationship presumption and proponent’s burden to rebut)
- Simpson v. Simpson, 432 S.W.3d 66 (Ark. App. 2014) (undue-influence inference and pertinence of testator’s mental strength)
- Gibraltar Lubricating Servs., Inc. v. Pinnacle Res., Inc., 486 S.W.3d 224 (Ark. App. 2016) (credibility issues and summary-judgment limits)
- Pyle v. Robertson, 858 S.W.2d 662 (Ark. 1993) (need to meet proof with proof to avoid summary judgment)
- Lucas v. Grant, 962 S.W.2d 388 (Ark. App. 1998) (definition and factual nature of confidential relationship)