in Re Mardigian Estate
312 Mich. App. 553
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Decedent executed an amended trust (Aug 13, 2010) and a will (June 8, 2011) drafted by appellant, an attorney and longtime friend, leaving the bulk of the estate to appellant and his children.
- Appellees (decedent’s brother, nephews, nieces, and girlfriend) challenged the trust and will after decedent’s death, arguing the documents were prepared in violation of MRPC 1.8(c) and therefore void as against public policy.
- The probate court granted appellees’ renewed motion for summary disposition, declaring the devises unenforceable on public-policy grounds; appellant appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding In re Powers Estate (375 Mich 150) controls and requires treating such instruments with suspicion (presumption of undue influence) rather than automatic invalidation.
- The majority concluded MRPC violations are disciplinary/ethical and not per se definitive of public policy for wills/trusts; the presumption of undue influence applies and must be rebutted by appellant.
- A dissent argued Powers was superseded by MRPC and subsequent authority (including Lizza/Terrien), and would have affirmed the probate court that the devises are void as contrary to public policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether devises prepared by an attorney who benefits are void as against public policy due to MRPC 1.8(c) | MRPC 1.8(c) and related statutes reflect public policy; such devises should be invalidated | Powers requires only a presumption of undue influence; MRPC violation is disciplinary but not automatically dispositive for wills/trusts | MRPC violation alone does not render devises void; remand under Powers to apply presumption of undue influence |
| Applicability of In re Powers Estate | Appellees: modern MRPC and later authorities supersede Powers | Appellant: Powers is binding Supreme Court precedent requiring remand for undue-influence inquiry | Powers is binding; court remands for proceedings where appellant must rebut presumption of undue influence |
| Whether trusts/wills should be treated like contracts for MRPC-based public-policy invalidation | Appellees: Lizza shows contracts violating MRPC are unenforceable; wills/trusts should be similarly voided | Appellant/Majority: wills/trusts derive from testator intent and differ from contracts; different treatment warranted | Wills/trusts differ from contracts; enforcing testator intent subject to undue-influence safeguards rather than facial invalidation |
| Burden of proof once presumption arises | Appellees: presumption supports invalidation absent more | Appellant: presumption can be rebutted with competent evidence demonstrating genuine intent | Presumption of undue influence arises (confidential relationship, benefit, opportunity); appellant must produce evidence to rebut; if unrebutted, devises fail |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Powers Estate, 375 Mich 150 (Mich. 1965) (presumption of undue influence where attorney drafts instrument benefiting self/family; requires further inquiry rather than automatic invalidation)
- Terrien v Zwit, 467 Mich 56 (Mich. 2002) (professional conduct rules may constitute indicators of public policy)
- Evans & Luptak, PLC v Lizza, 251 Mich App 187 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) (contracts violating MRPC are unenforceable as against public policy)
- In re Karmey Estate, 468 Mich 68 (Mich. 2003) (definition and proof standards for undue influence)
- In re Erickson Estate, 202 Mich App 329 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993) (three-part test for presumption of undue influence: confidential relationship, beneficiary interest, opportunity to influence)