Now Accepting New Clients!

WILLS/TRUSTS 22: Boyfriend exerted undue influence over mother’s trust.

Shortly before her death, the mother changed her estate plan to leave only nominal gifts to her children and grandchildren and the bulk of her estate to her boyfriend. Three of her sons petitioned the probate court to invalidate the trust, claiming that the boyfriend exerted undue influence over their mother.

The mother was 63 years old when she suffered a fatal heart attack likely caused by the effects of acute and chronic alcoholism. She is survived by four sons, two daughters-in-law, four grandchildren, and an ex-husband.

In 2011 or 2012, the mother met her boyfriend online. In 2012, he moved to Michigan to be with her.

The mother’s family and friends expressed concern about her relationship with the boyfriend. The boyfriend was unemployed, and the mother financially supported him. The mother had battled alcoholism throughout her life but had been sober for an extended period when she met the boyfriend. The boyfriend drank around the mother and the mother relapsed. The boyfriend exacerbated the problem by supplying the mother with alcohol.

The mother’s sons stopped visiting her because the boyfriend was hostile and even violent toward them. Longtime friends and relations noted that the mother would not speak to them on the phone when the boyfriend was around and would call or text at odd hours. And then the mother became ill; she lost a significant amount of weight, needed assistance to walk, and let her personal hygiene go. Yet, the mother continued to drink and had a blood alcohol level of 0.26 at the time of death.

The mother had established a revocable living trust in 2008. That trust is not part of the record, but several witnesses testified that the mother had always expressed her intent to leave her estate to her children.

On October 20, 2015, the mother executed a new trust, revoking her 2008 estate plan.

The mother essentially disinherited her family, leaving $1,000 to each of her children, $500 to each of her grandchildren, and a watch to a granddaughter. The remainder of the mother’s estate flowed to the boyfriend.

The family filed a probate court petition to invalidate the mother’s 2015 trust based on undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity. The matter proceeded to a seven-day bench trial.

A presumption of undue influence arises when there is evidence of (1) a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the grantor and a fiduciary, (2) the fiduciary or an interest he represents benefits from a transaction, and (3) the fiduciary had an opportunity to influence the grantor’s decision in that transaction.

When the presumption is established, the party seeking to enforce the trust must offer other evidence to rebut the presumption.

The court found that the mother and the boyfriend were in an intimate relationship and that she was dependent on him for assistance in maintaining her home and personal health.

The probate court rejected the boyfriend’s argument that she had retained her independence until her death. The court noted that witnesses had described the mother’s feeble and frail condition in the year preceding her estate plan changes, and many were shocked by her uncharacteristically unkempt appearance. The court also found that the mother wanted to maintain relationships with her family and friends and disliked her situation but felt helpless and unable to remedy the situation.

The evidence also supported that the boyfriend was driving the process to arrange and execute the estate plan changes.

The court ultimately invalidated the 2015 trust, finding that the evidence clearly established a presumption of undue influence that the boyfriend did not successfully rebut.

Aldrich Legal Services represents clients in a wide range of probate litigation matters. Given the emotional nature of these disputes and their financial impact on all involved, it is critical that anyone involved in such a dispute retain highly qualified legal counsel.

In addition to representing local clients, we have assisted many out-of-state clients who have required legal representation to resolve probate disputes here in Michigan. To schedule a consultation with an experienced probate litigation lawyer at our firm, contact our law office in Plymouth, Michigan.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

MICHIGAN REAL ESTATE 95: Property owners did not place a condition upon the delivery of the deed; rather, they delivered the deed to themselves.

When the delivery of a deed is contingent upon the happening of some future event, title to the subject property will not transfer to the grantee until the event has occurred. However, in this case A and J did not place a condition upon the delivery of the deed; rather, they delivered the deed to themselves, then deposited the deed with their attorney with the instruction to record the deed only upon the happening of a future event, thereby placing a condition only upon the recording of the deed.

MICHIGAN PROBATE 57: Brother granted permanent guardianship of siblings.

At a multiday hearing to address the extension of the guardianship, the eldest children, the mother’s relatives and friends, and school personnel testified regarding the mother’s care of the children, appellant’s treatment of and interaction with the children, and the eldest siblings’ role in aiding the mother to raise the children.

FAMILY LAW 88: The trial court found that the children did not have an established custodial environment with defendant because, before the separation, he did not have a large role in the children’s lives.

The trial court credited plaintiff’s testimony that, before the parties’ separation, defendant spent minimal time helping to care for the children, so its finding that the children would not have looked to defendant for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort during that time was not against the great weight of the evidence.

REAL ESTATE 89: RM had not included any language in the deed providing that the property was a joint tenancy with full rights of survivorship, the property instead became a tenancy in common.

RM drafted the deed without seeking counsel and mistakenly believed that, if either she or FK died, the property would fully pass to the surviving tenant. FK’s will provided that if his wife predeceased him—which she did—the personal representative of his estate should sell any residual property that he owned and divide the cash proceeds equally among his surviving children.

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

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
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000