in Re Groshon Estate and Trust
332445
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Decedent Charles Groshon executed pour-over will and trust documents that removed Kenneth Burkhardt as beneficiary and named Sandra Reed instead.
- Burkhardt petitioned in probate court to set aside the will and trust, alleging Groshon lacked testamentary capacity and that Reed exerted undue influence.
- A jury found the documents invalid on both grounds: lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by Reed.
- The probate court granted Reed JNOV on the capacity finding but denied JNOV on undue influence, leaving the jury’s undue-influence verdict intact.
- The appellate issue was whether the probate court erred in denying JNOV on the undue-influence verdict given Reed’s status as Groshon’s attorney-in-fact and the evidentiary record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reed unduly influenced Groshon to execute dispositive documents | Burkhardt: Reed, as attorney-in-fact and fiduciary, benefited and had opportunity; circumstantial evidence supports presumption of undue influence | Reed: Insufficient evidence to meet burden to rebut presumption; JNOV appropriate on undue-influence verdict | Affirmed denial of JNOV; jury could reasonably find undue influence under rebuttable presumption framework |
| Whether JNOV was appropriate on lack-of-capacity verdict | Burkhardt: Capacity finding by jury supported by evidence | Reed: Insufficient evidence of incapacity; trial court granted JNOV on capacity | Trial court correctly granted JNOV on capacity (not disturbed on appeal) |
| Whether a rebuttable presumption of undue influence arose | Burkhardt: Existence of fiduciary/confidential relationship, benefit to fiduciary, and opportunity to influence establishes presumption | Reed: Disputes sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and contends she rebutted presumption | Court: Presumption arose because all three elements were met; fact issue remained whether Reed rebutted it |
| Standard for appellate review of JNOV | Burkhardt: Jury verdict should stand if reasonable jurors could differ | Reed: JNOV required if insufficient evidence to create question of fact | Court applied de novo review and Heaton standard; concluded reasonable jurors could infer undue influence, so JNOV properly denied on that issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Heaton v. Benton Constr. Co., 286 Mich. App. 528 (discussing standard of review for JNOV)
- Kar v. Hogan, 399 Mich. 529 (describing burden and presumption framework for undue influence)
- In re Estate of Karmey, 468 Mich. 68 (limiting and discussing Kar)
- In re Estate of Leone, 168 Mich. App. 321 (defining undue influence)
- In re Langlois Estate, 361 Mich. 646 (undue influence may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- In re Susser Estate, 254 Mich. App. 232 (attorney-in-fact under general power of attorney occupies fiduciary relationship)
- Widmayer v. Leonard, 422 Mich. 280 (presumptions: burden of going forward vs. risk of nonpersuasion)
- Bill & Dena Brown Trust v. Garcia, 312 Mich. App. 684 (presumption of undue influence presents question for factfinder)
- In re Peterson Estate, 193 Mich. App. 257 (whether presumption rebutted is question for jury)
- Alpha Capital Mgmt., Inc. v. Rentenbach, 287 Mich. App. 589 (distinguishing fiduciary categories and confidential relationships)