Larmer v. Larmer
1 CA-CV 15-0561
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Chauncey Larmer (age 88) signed a will on November 6, 2013 leaving his entire estate to his son James and nominating James as personal representative; his wife Gloria and other son John received nothing.
- James petitioned to informally probate the will and to be appointed personal representative; Gloria objected, alleging James exercised undue influence and asking that the will be invalidated and James removed.
- At an evidentiary hearing, witnesses (including a paralegal procured by James, James’s wife, and the notary) testified about Chauncey’s competence and James’s role in preparing the will; a witness testified Chauncey was concerned about providing for his wife and later executed the will.
- The superior court found (implicitly applying the correct burden) that the statutory presumption of undue influence under A.R.S. § 14-2712(E)(1) was not rebutted, invalidated the will, and removed James as personal representative.
- The court’s removal decision rested on James’s failure to comply with a court order to serve notice on heirs (Gloria and John), which constituted disregarding a court order under A.R.S. § 14-3611(B)(3).
- On appeal, James challenged the undue-influence ruling and his removal; the Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s judgment and awarded costs to Gloria.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gloria) | Defendant's Argument (James) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of will / undue influence | Will is product of undue influence by James; presumption applies and was not rebutted | Presumption is rebuttable; James contends he rebutted it with evidence of Chauncey’s competence and voluntary signing | Court affirmed: presumption applied and James failed to rebut; will invalidated |
| Character of influence ("innocent" or fraudulent) | Influence sufficient regardless of fraud; multiple McCauley factors support undue influence | James argued influence was "innocent" (no fraud), so insufficient to void will | Court: fraud is only one factor; "innocent" involvement can still constitute undue influence |
| Sufficiency of evidence / credibility | Evidence (confession of confidential relationship, James instructed paralegal, sole beneficiary) supports undue influence | Testimony from wife and notary should rebut presumption; appellate court should reconsider credibility | Court: substantial evidence supports findings; appellate court will not reweigh credibility |
| Removal as personal representative | Court may remove PR who disregards court order; James failed to serve heirs as ordered | James argued removal improper | Court: removal proper under A.R.S. § 14-3611(B)(3) because James did not serve required notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullin v. Brown, 210 Ariz. 545 (discusses burden to rebut undue-influence presumption)
- In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236 (trial judge presumed to apply correct burden of proof)
- In re McCauley’s Estate, 101 Ariz. 8 (lists factors for undue-influence analysis)
- Davis v. Zlatos, 211 Ariz. 519 (definition of substantial evidence standard)
- In re Marriage of Gibbs, 227 Ariz. 403 (appellate standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez, 222 Ariz. 48 (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or credibility)
- In re Estate of Newman, 219 Ariz. 260 (appellate view of facts in favor of sustaining judgment)