Sigler v. Burk, 2017 Ohio 5486

Decedent Martha Sigler (79) fell and was hospitalized in Alabama in May 2014; her son Stephen was her primary caregiver but she became dissatisfied and asked her brother Robert and sister‑in‑law Janet Burk to assist.
The Burks arranged transfer to Mill Creek Nursing Home in Galion, Ohio; Martha executed a Durable POA (naming Robert and Janet as agent/alternate) and a Will on July 3, 2014 leaving 80% to the Burks and 20% to Stephen.
Martha died July 20, 2014. Her will was admitted to probate in Crawford County, Ohio; Stephen (an Alabama resident and sole heir) contested the will alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.
The Burks moved for summary judgment, submitting affidavits, witness depositions, and attorney statements showing Martha’s awareness of her affairs, property, and family when executing the will.
Stephen opposed with medical records and affidavits from caregivers reporting episodes of confusion, sedation, and cognitive decline but did not tie those observations specifically to the four Niemes capacity elements.
The probate court granted summary judgment for the Burks on all claims; the appellate court affirmed as to testamentary capacity but reversed as to undue influence and remanded for further proceedings on that claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Martha lacked testamentary capacity when she signed the July 3, 2014 will	Sigler: medical records and caregiver affidavits show confusion, dementia, sedation — raising a factual dispute about capacity	Burk: affidavits, witness testimony, and attorney contact show Martha understood the nature of her affairs, property, family, and the transaction	Court: affirmed summary judgment for Burks — no genuine issue of material fact on the four Niemes elements of capacity
Whether the Burks unduly influenced Martha in making the will	Sigler: Martha was vulnerable and the Burks had opportunity and motive to control her decisions	Burk: actions were legitimate assistance; they presented evidence of Martha’s independent decisions	Court: reversed summary judgment for Burks — fiduciary relationship (POA) created a presumption of undue influence and Stephen must be allowed to litigate the issue

Niemes v. Niemes, 97 Ohio St. 145 (1917) (sets four-part test for testamentary capacity)
Kennedy v. Walcutt, 118 Ohio St. 442 (1928) (evidence of mental/physical condition before and after execution admissible to show capacity)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant’s burden on summary judgment and nonmovant’s reciprocal burden under Civ.R. 56)
Hamilton v. Hector, 117 Ohio App.3d 816 (1997) (summary judgment standard summarized)
Campbell v. Hospital Motor Inns, Inc., 24 Ohio St.3d 54 (1986) (on viewing the record in favor of nonmovant on summary judgment)
Smith v. Shafter, 89 Ohio App.3d 181 (1993) (presumption of undue influence where fiduciary/confidential relationship exists)
Stone v. Davis, 66 Ohio St.2d 74 (1981) (definition of fiduciary relationship)
Krischbaum v. Dillon, 58 Ohio St.3d 58 (1991) (overruled other grounds noted; cited regarding admissibility principles)
Huntington v. Riversource, 45 N.E.3d 1053 (2015) (elements required to prove undue influence)