Pace v. Steele
2017 Ark. App. 354
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Ralph Steele (94) executed a will on January 7, 2013, while hospitalized/rehabilitating after surgery; the will left virtually all property to his nephew Darrell Steele and Darrell’s wife, Cora.
- Cora compiled notes of Ralph’s assets, brought those notes to attorney Dick Jarboe, who drafted the will from Cora’s notes without reinterviewing Ralph; Cora delivered the draft to Ralph for signature and paid the attorney from Ralph’s account.
- Two longtime friends (witnesses) were present when Ralph signed; several witnesses testified Ralph appeared alert and affirmed the will when it was read aloud.
- Medical records show episodes of confusion, a diagnosis entry indicating “waxing and waning” capacity, nursing notes of mild decision-making difficulty on the signing date, and administration of pain meds around that period.
- Pace (another heir) initially took intestate administration and later contested admission of the will, arguing procurement, lack of testamentary capacity, and undue influence.
- The trial court admitted the will; the Court of Appeals found the trial court clearly erred in concluding there was no procurement but affirmed probate because Pace failed to prove lack of capacity or undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pace) | Defendant's Argument (Cora/Darrell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procurement: did beneficiaries procure the will? | Cora and Darrell arranged, planned, and caused the will to be drafted and executed (procurement). | Their actions were performed at Ralph’s direction; they merely assisted in effectuating his wishes. | Held: Yes — beneficiaries procured the will; trial court erred in finding no procurement. |
| Burden-shifting once procurement found | Procurement creates a rebuttable presumption of undue influence and shifts burden to beneficiaries to come forward with proof. | Same but argue they met the required showing to refute undue influence. | Held: Procurement triggered the burden to go forward, but the ultimate burden of persuasion remained with Pace. |
| Testamentary capacity at execution | Medical records and medication show diminished, waxing/waning capacity and possible incapacity when the will was signed. | Witness testimony showed Ralph was alert, understood the will, affirmed it when read, and previously expressed intent to leave property to Darrell/Cora. | Held: Ralph had requisite capacity at signing; Pace failed to prove lack of capacity by a preponderance. |
| Undue influence | Close relationship, dominance, caregiving role, and control over drafting/execution produced undue influence. | Favoring caregivers was natural; evidence insufficient to show coercion or destruction of free agency. | Held: No undue influence proven by preponderance; beneficiaries presented sufficient evidence to dispel the presumption beyond a reasonable doubt for purposes of going forward. |
Key Cases Cited
- Looney v. Estate of Wade, 310 Ark. 708, 839 S.W.2d 531 (1992) (contestant bears burden to prove lack of capacity or undue influence by preponderance).
- Hodges v. Cannon, 68 Ark. App. 170, 5 S.W.3d 89 (1999) (procurement of a will creates a rebuttable presumption of undue influence and shifts the burden to the beneficiary to come forward).
- Bell v. Hutchins, 100 Ark. App. 308, 268 S.W.3d 358 (2007) (procurement requires actual drafting or planning of the will and causing execution).
- Rose v. Dunn, 284 Ark. 42, 679 S.W.2d 180 (1984) (presumption of undue influence does not shift the ultimate burden of persuasion from the contestant).
- Smith v. Welch, 268 Ark. 510, 597 S.W.2d 593 (1980) (facts showing beneficiary involvement in planning and execution can support a finding of procurement).
- Noland v. Noland, 330 Ark. 660, 956 S.W.2d 173 (1997) (lucid interval doctrine: prior or subsequent deterioration does not invalidate will if testator had capacity at execution).