in Re Roach Estate, 333669

Pauline Roach died April 12, 2015; her will left most of the residue and a 25% interest in real estate to her brother Norbert Glover; nothing was devised to granddaughter Ravon Wilson.
Glover had a durable power of attorney for Roach, regularly visited her, escorted her to the attorney’s office, and was present in the lobby during execution of the will.
Glover filed probate papers but initially omitted identifying Wilson (a minor) as an interested person; the will was admitted and Glover appointed personal representative.
Wilson filed a petition to set aside the will alleging undue influence, fraud, misrepresentations, duress, mistake, lack of testamentary capacity, and sought Glover’s removal and supervised administration.
At a one-day bench trial the probate court found the decedent to be strong-willed and capable and ruled Wilson did not meet her burden to show lack of testamentary intent or capacity, undue influence, fraud, mistake, duress, or revocation.
On appeal, Wilson pursued only the undue-influence claim; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the presumption of undue influence (based on fiduciary status, benefit, and opportunity) was rebutted by evidence of independent testamentary intent and credibility findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the will was procured by undue influence	Wilson argued Glover, as fiduciary who benefited and had opportunity, unduly influenced Roach to exclude Wilson	Glover argued he did not influence Roach, and testimony (attorney and family) showed Roach was strong-willed and made independent decisions	Court found the presumption of undue influence arose but was rebutted; affirmed no undue influence
Whether the presumption of undue influence, once raised, was satisfied by plaintiff	Wilson contended the presumption remained because Glover likely supplied the decedent inaccurate/omitted information about Wilson’s benefits	Glover produced direct testimony denying undue influence and attorney Winters corroborated Roach’s independent intent and understanding; no evidence undermined the accuracy of Roach’s reasons for excluding Wilson	Court deferred to probate court credibility findings and held rebuttal evidence was sufficient to dispel the presumption

In re Lundy Estate, 291 Mich. App. 347 (2011) (standard of review for probate-court decisions)
Christiansen v. Gerrish Twp., 239 Mich. App. 380 (2000) (clear-error standard explained)
Woodard v. Custer, 476 Mich. 545 (2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for dispositional rulings)
In re Duke Estate, 312 Mich. App. 574 (2015) (deference to probate court credibility assessments)
Bill & Dena Brown Trust v. Garcia, 312 Mich. App. 684 (2015) (elements of undue-influence presumption and burdens of proof)