Blog

Factual Background:

Settlor died, survived by Daughter, the plaintiff, and her three sons and their families, the defendants.  Settlor executed a will in 1996 leaving her assets to all four children in equal shares.  In May of 2007, Settlor sent a written request to her bank removing Daughter as a beneficiary on 3 CDs.  The same week, Settlor met with her attorney and asked to exclude Daughter from her St. Charles property due to their long-standing, troubled relationship.  As a result, Settlor’s attorney prepared a new Trust whereby Settlor’s St. Charles property would be split among her sons while Settlor’s Franklin County property and the residue of her estate were to be divided among all four children, including Daughter.  The Trust also included a no-contest clause providing that if any beneficiary contested the trust, they would be entitled to one dollar and all other provisions in favor of that beneficiary would be cancelled.

Daughter sued for an accounting, removal of trustee, imposition of a constructive trust, and damages for tortious interference. Defendants counterclaimed, seeking $25,000 under the trust’s no-contest clause.

Franklin County Circuit Court, Hoven, J., Held:

Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the defendants and awarded them $24,999 on their counterclaim.  Plaintiff appealed.

Court of Appeals, Crane, P.J., Held:

Affirmed.  Daughter argued that the 2007 changes were the result of undue influence and that the trial court misapplied the law of “mental competency” to this claim.  While a finding of mental competency does not preclude a finding of undue influence, a settlor’s mental and physical condition is highly material to the issue of undue influence; therefore a trial court may consider evidence of a settlor’s mental competency in such a case.

Further, Daughter argued she established elements that give rise to a presumption of undue influence.  However, the prima facie case for a presumption of undue influence is for use in a jury-tried case.  In a court-tried case, the court has considerable discretion, and even if a plaintiff makes a prima facie case, it does not mean she is entitled to recover.

Finally, Daughter argued the court ignored overwhelming evidence of undue influence because Settlor and one of her sons had a confidential relationship.  However, the mere existence of a confidential relationship is not sufficient to prove undue influence.  Non-coercive influence that does not deprive the settlor of her free agency is not improper.