e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 71986
Opinion Date : 12/19/2019
e-Journal Date : 01/16/2020
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : In re Chartier Revocable Living Trust
Practice Area(s) : Wills & Trusts
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Murray, Sawyer, and Gleicher
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Undue influence; In re Monier Khalil Living Trust; In re Mardigian Estate; Taylor v. Klahm; In re Erickson Estate; In re Hannan’s Estate; In re Sprenger’s Estate; Fiduciary relationship; The Estates & Protected Individuals Code (MCL 700.1101 et seq.); Law Offices of Jeffrey Sherbow, PC v. Fieger & Fieger, PC; First Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Marquette v. Albert; Van’t Hof v. Jemison; In re Jennings’ Estate; In re Karmey Estate; Notice pleading; MCR 2.111(B)(1); Johnson v. QFD, Inc.; Tomasik v. Michigan; Principle that text messages, as electronically stored information, qualify as documents for purposes of discovery; MCR 2.302(B)(1); MCR 2.310(B)(1)(a); Johnson v. State

Summary

The court held that the probate court did not err by setting aside the decedent’s testamentary documents based on a presumption of undue influence. Shortly before her death, the decedent changed her estate plan to leave only nominal gifts to her children (appellees) and grandchildren and the bulk of her estate to her boyfriend. Appellees sought to invalidate the trust, claiming the boyfriend exerted undue influence over the decedent. The boyfriend and the trustee (appellants) unsuccessfully sought summary dismissal of the challenge, and the probate court set aside the testamentary documents based on a presumption of undue influence. On appeal, the court first found that, “[e]ven if the pleadings were insufficient to state a claim, the [probate] court could have granted [appellees] an opportunity to amend the complaint based on ‘the evidence then before the court.’” Because “[s]ufficient facts created a triable issue,” dismissal of their petition would not have been warranted. In addition, appellees “presented evidence that [the boyfriend] did more than merely assist [the decedent] with various matters.” In addition, “appellants did not rebut the presumption of undue influence by” the boyfriend. Finally, “[b]ecause appellants could have obtained” the investigator’s report “without undue hardship, they were not entitled to discovery of” it. Affirmed.

Full PDF Opinion