Kiefer v. Kiefer (In Re Estate of Kiefer), 2017 Ohio 6997

Decedent John Kiefer died in July 2013 leaving assets (~$3.7M), including a multigenerational family farm. He was survived by his wife Kimberly (married 2010) and his only child, Jason.
John executed a will in May 2009 leaving the real estate (including the farm) to Kim and small cash/govt bond bequests to Jason. After marrying Kim in January 2010, John changed beneficiaries on multiple investment accounts to Kim and executed a final will (March 31, 2010) identical to the 2009 will except for Kim’s married surname. He also executed financial and health-care powers of attorney naming Kim.
Jason filed suit November 2013 contesting the 2010 will and post-marriage beneficiary changes, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence (and seeking to set aside beneficiary designations). A jury found the will and beneficiary changes valid; the probate court entered judgment May 2, 2016. Jason’s motion for a new trial was denied; he appealed.
Jason argued the court should have instructed the jury that a confidential or fiduciary relationship between John and Kim would create a presumption of undue influence. He also sought a new trial based on alleged jury misconduct (a domineering juror who prompted one juror to leave deliberations).
The probate court refused the requested presumption instruction and handled the juror incident by interviewing the juror and giving a modified Allen charge; Jason did not object at trial to the court’s handling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a confidential/fiduciary relationship between spouse and surviving spouse creates a presumption of undue influence that shifts the burden of proof	Kiefer: marital relationship plus powers of attorney and cohabitation created a confidential/fiduciary relationship, triggering a presumption of undue influence	Kim: marital relationship alone does not give rise to the presumption; no suspicious circumstances existed and powers of attorney were contemporaneous or post‑dated the dispositive decisions	Court: No presumption arises solely from marriage or from contemporaneous POAs; plaintiff needed additional "suspicious circumstances" and record lacked them — instruction properly refused
Whether juror misconduct required a new trial	Kiefer: a juror dominated deliberations, intimidated others, and caused a juror to leave — warrants a new trial	Kim: court properly investigated, questioned the juror, gave instruction (modified Allen), parties agreed on procedure; plaintiff failed to preserve any objection	Court: Plaintiff forfeited the claim by not objecting or requesting a mistrial at trial; denial of new trial affirmed

Murphy v. Carrollton Mfg. Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 585 (Ohio 1991) (standard for when requested jury instructions should be given)
AAAA Ent., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (abuse of discretion defined for appellate review)
West v. Henry, 173 Ohio St. 498 (Ohio 1961) (elements of undue influence)
Stone v. Davis, 66 Ohio St.2d 74 (Ohio 1981) (definition of fiduciary relationship)
Krischbaum v. Dillon, 58 Ohio St.3d 58 (Ohio 1991) (when presumption of undue influence arises for attorney–client beneficiary)
Lah v. Rogers, 125 Ohio App.3d 164 (Ohio Ct. App.) (blood relationships do not automatically create undue-influence presumption)
In re Scott, 111 Ohio App.3d 273 (Ohio Ct. App.) (holder of power of attorney can have fiduciary relationship with principal)
State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2015) (forfeiture/waiver explained: failure to timely object preserves no error on appeal)