734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

PROBATE 43: The court affirmed the probate court order dismissing appellant’s petition to set aside the decedent’s 2018 will and admit his 2003 will for failure to create a genuine issue of material fact.

Appellant is one of three surviving children of Decedent, along with two other siblings.  Decedent executed his last will in 2018, revoking a prior will from 2003. The 2018 will affirmatively made no dispositive provisions for appellant or her descendants. Ultimately appellant filed an amended petition alleging lack of incapacity by decedent and undue influence on decedent. Appellant requested that the 2003 will be admitted to probate in lieu of the 2018 will.  Appellant appeals from an order of the probate court dismissing her petition to set aside the decedent’s 2018 will and admit his 2003 will and to set aside certain ladybird deeds, for failure to create a genuine issue of material fact. MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm.

ANALYSIS

We review a trial court’s grant or denial of summary disposition de novo. We review a motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) by looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and determining whether it raises a genuine issue of material fact. Moreover, it is presumed that a testator has the mental capacity to make a will. Additionally, “testamentary capacity is judged as of the time of the execution of the instrument, and not before or after, except as the condition before or after is competently related to the time of execution.” And the burden is on the person who contests the will to establish the lack of testamentary capacity.

Applying this test to the first two of appellant’s arguments, those arguments fall short. As to appellant’s brief quotation from a medical record, that record was created 12 weeks before the decedent executed the will. And it merely references an assessment of the decedent while in the hospital. Not only does the passage quoted by appellant fail to establish whether the decedent had testamentary capacity at the time that he was in the hospital, it certainly does not establish whether, even if he lacked capacity at that time, he still lacked capacity 12 weeks later. Appellant overlooks an important principle, namely, that there is no rule that capacity once lost is lost forever. That is why the court must always look to the testator’s capacity at the time the will is executed, not whether there was a lack of capacity at some other time. Next, we turn to appellant’s argument that decedent’s reference to her by a prior married name in the will reflects a lack of capacity. While this is perhaps a stronger argument, we find it still to come up short. The only statutory factor that it even arguably relates to is MCL 700.2501(2)(c), whether decedent knew the natural objects of his bounty. While the use of one of appellant’s prior married names, one that she had not used in a dozen years, may reflect some confusion by decedent, it nonetheless reflects that he was aware that she was his daughter. That is, he knew that she was a natural object of his bounty and the will reflects his decision to disinherit her.

Turning to the issue of undue influence, appellant again provides a scant basis to support her claim that her brother exercised undue influence over their father. Appellant argues her brother had opportunity to influence his father. But mere opportunity does not establish that undue influence existed. Similarly, even accepting appellant’s characterization of her brother as “domineering,” she does not bring forth actual evidence that he dominated his father to the point of engaging in undue influence to change his will. To establish undue influence, it must be shown that the “deceased’s free agency was destroyed and he acted under such coercion, compulsion, or constraint that the will did not truly proceed from him according to his wishes, which is the test of undue influence.” None of the evidence to which appellant directs our attention would allow a reasonable trier of fact to reach such a conclusion.

The trial court’s decision is affirmed.

Facing Probate and Estate Administration

If you have lost a loved one, the last thing you should have to deal with at this time is the confusing and often frustrating process of probate.

Aldrich Legal Services offers comprehensive guidance throughout the probate process, including the filing of petitions, notices to creditors, distribution of assets to beneficiaries and other services required throughout the probate process. We offer probate services for clients whose loved ones died with or without a will.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

Michigan Expungement Law Updates For 2021

There has been a new laws regarding expungements for the state of Michigan.  Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that expands the criteria for expungements related to traffic offenses, marijuana convictions, and minor...

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405