In an unpublished opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals dodges the question of what burden of proof is required to rebut the presumption of undue influence, adopting instead the language of the trial court that the evidence presented in this matter was not “sufficient” to do so.
The case of In Re Estate of Lawrence Lowell Washington Jr. covers common ground. [Click on then name to read the case.]
X seeks to probate a 2022 Will of Decedent. Y objects claiming X exerted undue influence to obtain the 2022 Will. The Court finds that the elements of the presumption of undue influence are met [(1) X was a fiduciary to Decedent, (2) X had the opportunity to influence the Decedent, and (3) X benefited from the 2022 Will)].
The only issue at trial was whether X could rebut the presumption now established.
After receiving evidence, the trial court finds that the presumption was not rebutted and accordingly, the 2022 Will is rejected.
The COA affirms.
Michigan law has been unsettled for some years over the question of what burden of proof is required to rebut the presumption once the elements of the presumption have been met. (A preponderance? A scintilla? Something in between?)
This case offers little insight into what the law is or should be on this important point but probably reveals how these cases are being decided notwithstanding.
376103
