Robinson v. Estate of Robinson Sr.
2016 Ark. App. 130
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Decedent Harry Robinson, Sr. (86) executed a will on May 17, 2011 leaving his entire estate to his second wife, Benne; his only surviving child Richard contested after probate.
- Decedent suffered from Parkinson’s and had medical records noting dementia/confusion from 2010–2011; his primary-care physician examined him May 19, 2011 and found him competent two days after the will was executed.
- Prior wills (2006, 2010, and a February 2011 codicil) had given substantial bequests to Decedent’s sons; the 2011 will made Benne sole beneficiary and was executed after the death of Decedent’s son Rudy on May 11, 2011.
- Richard alleged the 2011 will was procured by Benne, that Decedent lacked testamentary capacity and competency, and that undue influence/duress caused the will’s execution.
- The circuit court found Richard proved procurement (shifting the burden), but concluded Benne met the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden to show Decedent had testamentary capacity and that the will was not the product of undue influence; trial fact findings were detailed and relied on testimony of the attesting witnesses, notary, attorney, and Dr. Burks.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the circuit court’s factual findings on capacity and undue influence were not clearly erroneous and deferring to the trial court’s credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Testamentary capacity at time of execution | Richard: medical records and witnesses show dementia and lack of capacity on May 17, 2011 | Benne: attesting witnesses, attorney, and Dr. Burks showed Decedent was competent at signing | Court: Capacity is judged at signing; found evidence supports competence on May 17, 2011; affirmed |
| Undue influence / procurement | Richard: Benne procured the will and exercised undue influence as caregiver and spouse | Benne: no evidence she drafted or coerced; witnesses observed Decedent acted freely | Court: procurement found (shifted burden), but Benne proved beyond reasonable doubt no undue influence; affirmed |
| Burden shift from contestant to proponent | Richard: proponent (Benne) still must fail to prove validity given weaknesses | Benne: procurement/confidential relationship shifts burden; she met heightened burden | Court: acknowledged burden shift due to procurement/confidential relationship; Benne met the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard |
| Appellate review standard | Richard: trial court clearly erred in factual findings | Benne: trial court credibility findings entitled to deference | Court: applied de novo review with clear-error deference on facts and credibility; not clearly erroneous; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepherd v. Jones, 461 S.W.3d 351 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (discusses burden-shifting when a will is procured and standards for undue influence and capacity)
- Pyle v. Sayers, 39 S.W.3d 774 (Ark. 2001) (appellate standard in will contests; proponent s burden beyond a reasonable doubt on remand issues)
- Foster v. Foster, 377 S.W.3d 497 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (testamentary-capacity test and relevance of mental condition before/after execution)
- Simpson v. Simpson, 432 S.W.3d 66 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (confidential relationship creates rebuttable presumption of undue influence)
- Harbur v. O'Neal, 432 S.W.3d 651 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (deference to trial court on witness credibility in capacity/undue-influence findings)