William L. Burkhalter v. Steven P. Burkhalter
2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 132
| Iowa | 2013Background
- Louis D. Burkhalter Jr. executed a revocable trust (1980) that originally made son William primary beneficiary; the trust was amended over time and placed Louis’s home (occupied by William) into the trust.
- In July 2007, while Louis (age 98) was declining, son Steven visited, arranged meetings with the bank trustee and Louis’s attorney, and on July 13 amended the trust to split assets equally between William and Steven; Louis died six days later.
- William sued, alleging the July 13 modification was procured by undue influence, that Louis lacked testamentary capacity, and that Steven tortiously interfered with the trust; the district court directed a verdict for Steven on tortious interference but submitted undue influence and capacity to the jury.
- At trial the court gave a single instruction on undue influence that merged the model Iowa Civil Jury Instructions and included a subparagraph requiring that the trust changes be “clearly the result” of undue influence; the jury found for Steven on undue influence and capacity.
- The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, holding the added subparagraph improperly heightened plaintiff’s burden or unduly emphasized causation; the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Instruction No. 2 improperly heightened plaintiff’s burden by requiring the result be “clearly” caused by undue influence | Burkhalter: the “clearly” language plus subparagraph structure elevated the standard above preponderance and confused the jury | Steven: the instruction correctly stated Iowa law; jurors were told to apply preponderance and instructions must be read as a whole | Court: upheld instruction — preponderance standard applies generally, but Iowa law also requires causation to be shown "clearly," and the two can coexist |
| Whether the instruction was unduly repetitive or gave undue emphasis to causation | Burkhalter: duplication of causation in subparagraphs 4 and 5 unduly emphasized that element | Steven: any overlap clarified the law and, read together, did not unfairly emphasize evidence | Court: no undue repetition; overlap clarified concepts and did not amount to prejudicial emphasis |
| Whether Iowa should apply a clear-and-convincing standard for undue influence generally | Burkhalter: argued instruction’s wording effectively imposed a higher evidentiary standard | Steven: supported continued recognition of heightened causation element but not heightened overall standard | Court: reaffirmed preponderance standard for will-contest undue influence claims (no return to clear-and-convincing for all elements) but retained "clearly" causation element as substantive protection of testator’s free will |
| Whether the trial court erred in not directing a verdict for Steven on undue influence (cross-appeal) | N/A (William prevailed to submit claim) | Steven argued directed verdict should have been granted | Court: did not reach Steven’s directed-verdict argument because it affirmed the jury verdict and district judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Todd, 585 N.W.2d 273 (Iowa 1998) (preponderance standard for undue influence in will contests; recognized causation must be clearly shown)
- In re Estate of Dankbar, 430 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa 1988) (discusses causation requirement in undue influence context)
- In re Estate of Davenport, 346 N.W.2d 530 (Iowa 1984) (rejects weak circumstantial evidence as insufficient to show undue influence)
- In re Ankeny’s Estate, 28 N.W.2d 414 (Iowa 1947) (adopts four-element formulation including result clearly showing effects of undue influence)
- In re Estate of Herm, 284 N.W.2d 191 (Iowa 1979) (addresses burden shift when confidential or fiduciary relationship exists)