941 N.W.2d 808
S.D.2020Background
- Dora Lee and Marlin Gaaskjolen executed reciprocal wills in 1990 naming daughters Audrey and Vicki as equal alternate beneficiaries; Marlin died in 2003.
- After years of caregiving by Audrey and a 2007 traumatic brain injury, Dora Lee became increasingly dependent on Audrey, who lived with her, managed many affairs, and controlled visitors.
- In 2012, amid a dispute over leasing the north half of the ranch and a conservatorship petition (Dacotah Bank appointed), Dora Lee executed a will disinheriting Vicki and leaving the estate to Audrey; a 2014 codicil reaffirmed that will and replaced Audrey as personal representative.
- Audrey arranged meetings with attorneys, suggested provisions, and coordinated witnesses; attorneys met directly with Dora Lee and testified she expressed the desire to exclude Vicki.
- Vicki contested probate alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence; the circuit court found Dora Lee had capacity but invalidated the will and codicil for undue influence; Audrey appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Vicki) | Defendant's Argument (Audrey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a presumption of undue influence arose from a confidential relationship plus active participation in will preparation | A presumption arose because Audrey was Dora Lee’s caregiver, controlled access and communications, actively participated with counsel, and profited | Audrey argued she did not exercise undue influence; attorneys met with Dora Lee independently and Dora Lee expressed her wishes | Presumption arose; but Audrey presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption (so court proceeded to merits) |
| Whether Audrey rebutted the presumption of undue influence | Vicki argued rebuttal failed because Audrey dominated communications, isolated Dora Lee, and orchestrated wills to benefit herself | Audrey relied on independent counsel’s interviews, written questions, and attorneys’ testimony that Dora Lee expressed her intentions | Rebuttal met the burden of going forward (evidence was substantial and credible), so presumption fell away; ultimate burden remained with Vicki |
| Whether Vicki proved undue influence on the merits (four elements: susceptibility, opportunity, disposition, result) | Vicki asserted all four elements were satisfied: Dora Lee’s infirmities (susceptibility), Audrey’s control (opportunity), Audrey’s animus and actions (disposition), and an unnatural result favoring Audrey (result) | Audrey contended testamentary capacity and independent legal advice foreclosed undue influence; codicil reaffirmed independence | Court found all four elements satisfied: substantial medical/functional impairment, Audrey’s isolation and involvement, motive and conduct, and an unnatural $1.5M benefit to Audrey — undue influence proven |
| Whether the 2014 codicil or independent counsel cured any taint from earlier undue influence | Vicki argued codicil did not purge taint because surrounding circumstances and result persisted | Audrey argued codicil and independent legal advice republished and validated the will, removing the taint as a matter of law | Court held republication/independent counsel did not conclusively remove taint; fact-based inquiry supported continued finding of undue influence — codicil did not salvage the instruments |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Pringle, 751 N.W.2d 277 (S.D. 2008) (framework for presumption of undue influence and burden shifting)
- In re Estate of Dokken, 604 N.W.2d 487 (S.D. 2000) (confidential relationship + active participation can give rise to presumption)
- In re Estate of Dimond, 759 N.W.2d 534 (S.D. 2008) (standard for when presumptions are rebutted by substantial, credible evidence)
- In re Estate of Borsch, 353 N.W.2d 346 (S.D. 1984) (susceptibility and evidence of persistent efforts to control property as indicia of undue influence)
- Walsh v. Shoulders, 206 N.W.2d 60 (S.D. 1973) (independent legal advice may rebut presumption but is not necessarily dispositive)
- In re Estate of Elliott, 537 N.W.2d 660 (S.D. 1995) (republishing a will can remove taint of earlier undue influence in some circumstances)
- Stockwell v. Stockwell, 790 N.W.2d 52 (S.D. 2010) (treatment of presumptions and credibility in testamentary disputes)