Simpson v. Simpson
2014 Ark. App. 80
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Arkansas Court of Appeals, Division II, No. CV-13-75, review of order setting aside Edith Simpson's May 8, 2006 will.
- Edith's May 2006 will left everything to appellant Timothy Simpson and revoked prior arrangements.
- Appellees (the other children) objected on grounds of fraud/undue influence and sought probate of the 2002 will.
- The trial court found Edith lacked free will due to appellant's undue influence and set aside the 2006 will.
- Evidence showed appellant's threats, isolation of Edith from family, and controlling behavior; Edith had medical frailties.
- The court concluded the 2006 will was product of undue influence, not Edith's free will, and denied probate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there clear error in finding undue influence? | Simpson contends no direct proof; burden not met | Appellees argue circumstantial proof supports undue influence | No clear error; undue influence found based on circumstantial evidence |
| Did appellant procure the will or hold a confidential relationship? | Simpson denies procurement and confidential relationship | Appellees argue procurement or presumption from confidential relationship exists | Court found density of circumstantial proof supports undue influence regardless of procurement/relationship |
| What standard governs review of probate decisions? | De novo review appropriate, credibility for witness weigh-in | Deference to trial court on credibility warranted | Appellate court reviews de novo but respects trial court credibility assessments |
| Did Hyett v. Wroten apply to shift the burden of proof? | Burden not shifted unless procurement or confidential relationship shown | Hyett supports shifting when circumstantial proof of undue influence exists | Hyett applicable; burden shifting recognized in circumstances of this case |
Key Cases Cited
- Hyatt v. Wroten, 184 Ark. 847, 43 S.W.3d 726 (1931) (Ark. 1931) (undue influence is difficult to prove directly; circumstantial proof admissible)
- Pyle v. Sayers, 344 Ark. 354, 39 S.W.3d 774 (2001) (Ark. 2001) (requires mental capacity and free will; credibility matters)
- Rose v. Dunn, 284 Ark. 42, 679 S.W.2d 180 (1984) (Ark. 1984) (test for mental capacity and undue influence; weight on evidence)
- Medlock v. Mitchell, 95 Ark. App. 132, 234 S.W.3d 901 (2006) (Ark. App. 2006) (confidentiality and influence considerations in will challenges)
- Bell v. Hutchins, 100 Ark. App. 308, 268 S.W.3d 358 (2007) (Ark. App. 2007) (burden-shifting framework in will contests)
- Higgs v. Estate of Higgs, 48 Ark. App. 148, 892 S.W.2d 284 (1995) (Ark. App. 1995) (undue influence often proven by circumstantial evidence)