Young v. Kaufman
101 N.E.3d 655
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Joyce Kaufman (decedent) had five children; in 2010 she executed a will and revocable trust that disinherited two children (Jim and Lori) and named Josh, Kim, and Doug as beneficiaries and co-executors/co‑trustees. Joyce signed the documents December 10, 2010.
- Joyce had repeatedly revised her estate plan since the 1990s; by 2009–2010 she told advisors she intended to leave her estate to three children because Jim and Lori had been bought out earlier.
- Much of the 2010 estate‑planning communication occurred through Joyce’s son Josh (Joyce did not use email); attorney Gariepy prepared the final documents and testified that he followed protocol in confirming Joyce’s intent but had limited recorded direct communications with her.
- After Joyce’s 2010 execution she attempted in 2013 to revise the plan to include all five children but died before completing new documents; appellants (Jim and Lori) sued, alleging the 2010 plan was the product of undue influence by Josh and Kim and sought removal of Josh and Kim as fiduciaries.
- The probate court bifurcated discovery and granted summary judgment for appellees on (1) the will/trust contest (finding no undue influence and that Joyce had testamentary capacity) and (2) the removal claim (appellants lacked standing). Appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment properly granted on undue‑influence contest of 2010 estate plan | Jim/Lori: genuine issues exist that Josh and Kim exerted undue influence (confidential/fiduciary relationship; Josh controlled communications; Kim attorney‑in‑fact) | Josh/Kim: no evidence of undue influence; Joyce was of sound mind; estate plan reflected her consistent intent | Reversed: summary judgment improper as to Josh — genuine issues exist whether Josh had a confidential relationship and whether undue influence occurred; Kim, as attorney‑in‑fact, gave rise to a presumption but record showed she rebutted it |
| Whether Joyce lacked testamentary capacity when executing 2010 documents | Jim/Lori: evidence and testimony raise issues about Joyce’s susceptibility and pressure from Josh | Josh/Kim: medical/attorney testimony supports capacity; no cognitive deficits shown | Court affirmed that no evidence of lack of testamentary capacity in December 2010; contest should still proceed on undue‑influence questions |
| Whether appellants had standing to pursue removal of executors/trustees | Jim/Lori: even if 2010 documents stand, an oral trust or later intent (2013 family meeting) could confer rights and standing; removal claim should proceed | Josh/Kim: appellants are not beneficiaries under 2010 plan, so lack standing; oral‑trust theory was not pleaded and fails as a matter of law | Reversed: because undue‑influence issues preclude summary adjudication of the 2010 plan, standing for removal claim cannot be decided on that basis; remand for further proceedings |
| Whether a presumption of undue influence arose and who bears burdens at summary judgment | Jim/Lori: presumption arises from fiduciary/confidential relationships and beneficiary involvement in planning; shifts burden to defendants to rebut | Josh/Kim: no confidential/fiduciary relationship (except Kim’s POA); evidence shows voluntariness and independent legal advice | Court: presumption arose as to Kim (POA) but was rebutted; genuine factual dispute exists as to whether Josh occupied a confidential role such that the presumption applies and whether it was rebutted — summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (de novo standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant’s and nonmovant’s burdens on Civ.R. 56 summary judgment)
- Krischbaum v. Dillon, 58 Ohio St.3d 58 (1991) (presumption of validity when will admitted to probate)
- West v. Henry, 173 Ohio St. 498 (1962) (elements of undue influence and its required effect on testamentary act)
- Haynes, In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101 (1986) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Redman v. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Soc. of Pennsylvania, 69 Ohio St.3d 98 (1994) (most undue‑influence proof is circumstantial)
- Ament v. Reassure Am. Life Ins. Co., 180 Ohio App.3d 440 (2009) (Ohio appellate discussion of undue influence elements)