Two recent Michigan Court of Appeals cases delve into what it takes to successfully pursue an undue influence claim. In re Sherrod Estate, No 369863, 2025 WL 855275 (Mich Ct App Mar 18, 2025) (unpublished) and In re Estate of Irene Sabaugh Trust, No 365775, 2025 WL 869048 (Mich Ct App Mar 19, 2025) (unpublished).
Undue influence is a claim that can invalidate a legal transaction. A rebuttable presumption of undue influence exists when a party introduced evidence demonstrating (1) the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the grantor and a fiduciary, (2) the fiduciary or an interest which he represents benefits from a transaction, and (3) the fiduciary had an opportunity to influence the grantor’s decision in that transaction.
Even when the presumption is met, the burden of proof remains with the person contesting the legal transaction.
In re Sherrod Estate
In Sherrod Estate, the decedent’s daughter Dedra pursued an undue influence claim against her uncle Michael relating to a credit union account. Dedra was originally intended to receive the account, but after the decedent was hospitalized, and after Michael drove the decedent to the police station to make a report that Dedra was mismanaging his money and not caring for him, Michael took the decedent to the credit union where the decedent removed Dedra’s access to the account. At the closing of trial, the probate court held that Dedra’s evidence established a presumption of undue influence, that Michael’s rebuttal evidence was much weaker, and that as a result Michael unduly influenced the decedent to name Michael as beneficiary of the account.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Michael did not have a “confidential or fiduciary relationship” with the decedent. The Court of Appeals explained as follows in distinguishing between non-fiduciary and fiduciary relationships:
- Trusting the other person is insufficient; placing reliance on advice and judgment is required.
- Driving a person to the estate-planning attorney’s office or a bank/credit union is insufficient.
- Access to financial information is insufficient; control over finances is required.
The decedent trusted Michael, Michael drove him to the credit union, and the decedent’s mail was going to Michael’s house. But per the Court of Appeals, the probate court was clearly erroneous in concluding there was a confidential or fiduciary relationship between them because there was no evidence that the decedent relied upon Michael’s advice or judgment or that the decedent gave Michael control over his finances.
Interestingly, rather than remand to the probate court, the Court of Appeals held that “[Dedra] has never argued that she presented sufficient evidence to establish undue influence absent a presumption, so our conclusion that [Dedra] failed to establish the presumption of undue influence resolves the case.”
In re Estate of Irene Sabaugh Trust
In Sabaugh Trust, the decedent Irena amended her trust to leave her real estate to her four grandchildren rather than her three daughters. One of Irene’s daughters petitioned to invalidate the trust amendment on the grounds that Irena’s grandson unduly influenced Irena to amend her trust.
The grandson moved for summary disposition, asking the probate court to dismiss the undue influence claim on the grounds there was no genuine issue of material fact in support of the claim. With his motion, the grandson relied upon:
1) A 2014 Order evicting petitioner from Irene’s home,
2) The grandson’s affidavit stating Irene clearly communicated her intent that the grandchild receive her real estate, and Irene used a new attorney because her prior attorney was on the brink of retirement,
3) Irene’s two other daughters’ affidavits stating Irene wanted her real estate to go to her grandchildren rather than her children, and
4) The drafting attorney’s affidavit stating that in their private meetings, Irena was adamant about wanting her real estate to go to her grandchildren, and that Irena was pleasant and did not suffer from any mental or physical issues that hindered her ability to communicate.
The evidence further reflected that Irena was recommended to the attorney by the grandson’s brother-in-law, but that the grandson’s involvement was limited to sometimes driving Irena to appointments and to discuss family organization, Irena’s assets, and Irene’s payment to the attorney.
In response to the motion, petitioner relied on affidavits and medical records showing Irene had several physical and mental-health diagnoses and was on medications.
The probate court granted the motion and dismissed the undue influence claim, finding there was no genuine issue of material fact to support the claim because petitioner’s affidavits consisting mostly of hearsay and the medical information predated the trust amendment.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals assumed the presumption of undue influence applied for its analysis. The Court of Appeals affirmed because the affidavits submitted by petitioner did not demonstrate that Irene was subjected to threats or coercion and the medical records did not reflect a lack of mental capacity. “It was not the probate court’s role to assess credibility, weigh the evidence, or resolve factual disputes, but, rather, to determine whether a genuine issue existed when reviewing the evidence. The probate court did not err in granting summary disposition to [the grandson].”
Conclusion
Whether an undue influence claim will survive summary disposition, and succeed at trial, is very fact dependent and often hinges on whether the presumption of undue influence has been established.
