Harbur v. O'Neal
2014 Ark. App. 119
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant Jeanne Simpson Harbur appeals a 3/14/2013 declaratory judgment in favor of Sarah Shelton O’Neal and Carter Shelton regarding amendments to the Josephine Young Simpson Revocable Trust.
- The circuit court shifted the burden of proof to Jeanne upon a presumed undue-influence theory due to a confidential and fiduciary relationship stemming from Jeanne’s involvement in Mrs. Simpson’s finances.
- Two May 2011 trust amendments (one making Jeanne sole trustee) and a November 2011 amendment (Jeanne as sole beneficiary) were at issue; Jeanne prepared and signed the documents.
- Mrs. Simpson executed handwritten August 2011 documents purporting holographic wills, later related to the proposed November 2011 amendment, but those handwritten documents were not controlling for disposition of assets.
- The court found a confidential and fiduciary relationship, applied a rebuttable undue-influence presumption, and concluded Jeanne failed to prove Mrs. Simpson had the mental capacity and freedom of will; the May 2, 2011 amendment was invalidated; the August 2011 handwritten documents were not recognized as controlling amendments; and the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden shift on undue influence proper due to confidential/fiduciary relationship | Harbur argues improper burden shift | O’Neal and Shelton defend the shift | Proper burden shift upheld |
| Validity of the May 2, 2011 trust amendment under undue influence | Jeanne contends no incapacity evidence; presumption rebuttal unclear | Proponents failed to rebut the undue-influence presumption | May 2, 2011 amendment invalidated |
| Recognition of August 2011 handwritten documents as trust amendments | Documents should be treated as amendments | Not controlling and not preserved for trial | Not recognized as controlling amendments; issue not preserved |
| Effect of alleged hearing disability on credibility and proceedings | Disability affected credibility assessment | Issue not preserved for review | Issue not preserved; not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. Dunn, 284 Ark. 42 (1984) (mental capacity and undue influence standards in trusts/devises)
- Medlock v. Mitchell, 95 Ark. App. 132, 234 S.W.3d 901 (2006) (presumption of undue influence when fiduciary/confidential relations exist)
- Pyle v. Sayers, 72 Ark. App. 207, 34 S.W.3d 786 (2000) (burden shifts to proponents to prove capacity and freedom of will)
- Baptist Health v. Murphy, 2010 Ark. 358, 373 S.W.3d 269 (2010) (standard for clearly erroneous findings in probate appeals)
- Parker v. Advanced Portable X-Ray, LLC, 2014 Ark. App. 11 (2014) (issues not raised below generally not reviewable on appeal)