846 N.W.2d 782
S.D.2014Background
- Earl W. Long (decedent) executed a pourover will and a revocable trust in 2008 and made substantial inter vivos gifts and trust amendments in 2009–2010 detailing a color‑coded land division among his four daughters (Vicky, Lynda, Diann, Brenda).
- Earl used memoranda of gifts, deeds, and a December 12, 2009 map allocating parcels; he created an LLC to hold certain property for the children and amended Brenda’s trust (Jan. 23, 2010) to limit income distributions for her housing/maintenance.
- After Earl’s death (Feb. 26, 2010), Vicky filed LLC articles; daughters distributed proceeds of some sales; Brenda later filed for formal probate and challenged the estate plan.
- At formal probate, the circuit court found (1) Earl was testamentarily competent, (2) no undue influence by Vicky/Dean produced the plan, (3) the trust did not require equalization of previously distributed property, (4) Brenda’s trust amendment was valid, and (5) Brenda was not entitled to attorney fees.
- Brenda appealed, raising issues of testamentary capacity, undue influence, required equalization under the trust, promissory estoppel, and entitlement to attorney fees; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brenda) | Defendant's Argument (Estate/Vicky) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Testamentary capacity | Earl lacked capacity (medical evidence of mild impairment; Dr. Cwach) | Medical records, treating physician testimony, and lay witnesses show Earl was competent before and after the transactions | Court affirmed: Earl had requisite testamentary capacity |
| Undue influence | Vicky (confidential relationship) steered gifts and received disproportionately valuable property, showing undue influence | Although a presumption arose, Vicky rebutted it; Earl was independent and competent; disparities could reflect daughter's work/role | Court affirmed: no undue influence proven by preponderance |
| Trust required equalization of all remaining assets | Section 7.3.1 and related provisions required trustee to equalize distributions to achieve equal shares accounting for earlier gifts | Trust language, amendments, and map show Earl disposed of property during life; Article 7 has no percentages or operative Schedule B; equalization provision was a contingency and not operative at death | Court affirmed: trust did not require equalizing previously distributed land |
| Promissory estoppel & attorney fees | Brenda contended promissory estoppel barred modification and sought fees | Trial court rejected estoppel claim and denied fees; estate defended validity of amendments and trusts | Court affirmed: promissory estoppel and fee award were properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Stockwell v. Stockwell, 2010 S.D. 79 (states mixed fact‑law review for capacity and undue influence)
- In re Estate of Dokken, 2000 S.D. 9 (definition of testamentary capacity)
- In re Estate of Pringle, 2008 S.D. 38 (treatment of inter vivos acts as testamentary where disposition intended at death)
- In re Estate of Unke, 1998 S.D. 94 (burden shifting when presumption of undue influence arises)
- In re Sunray Holdings Trust, 2013 S.D. 89 (trust interpretation is a question of law; honor settlor’s intent)