Title to a decedent’s credit union account; Whether a presumption of undue influence was established; In re Estate of Karmey; Existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship; In re Wood’s Estate; Knight v Behringer; In re Jennings’ Estate

The court held that the probate court clearly erred in finding that a confidential or fiduciary relationship existed between the decedent and his brother (appellant-Michael). Absent that finding, appellee-McBurrows-Sherrod (the decedent’s daughter) could not establish a presumption of undue influence and she did not argue that she produced sufficient evidence to establish undue influence without the presumption. Thus, the court reversed the probate court’s ruling that Michael unduly influenced decedent to name him the beneficiary of his credit union account (the DMCU account). “Trust alone is not sufficient to establish a confidential or fiduciary relationship.” Rather, what is required is “‘a reposing of faith, confidence and trust and the placing of reliance by one upon the judgment and advice of another.’” The probate court concluded “that its finding of a confidential or fiduciary relationship between decedent and Michael was supported by Michael’s testimony that (1) decedent ‘needed Michael Sherrod to help him’ by driving him to the bank after he became ‘very suspicious of’ McBurrows-Sherrod, (2) decedent told Michael ‘you’re the only person I can trust,’ and (3) decedent ‘redirected all his mail to—to Michael’s house with regard to financial issues.’” But the court held that this “evidence was not sufficient to support a finding of a confidential or fiduciary relationship.” To establish that such a relationship existed, in addition to a finding that decedent trusted Michael, “there needed to be evidence that [he] demonstrated his trust in Michael by placing reliance on Michael’s judgment or advice[.]” The court found “no such evidence in the record.” It noted that nothing in the record suggested he “gave Michael any control over [his] finances such that decedent would have to trust Michael’s judgment. Indeed, [he] did not even give Michael access to the funds in his DMCU account while [he] was alive—decedent only made Michael the beneficiary on his DMCU account. And while Michael drove [him] to DMCU in a trip that resulted in decedent naming Michael the beneficiary of [his] account, this supports only that Michael had the opportunity to influence” him, not that a confidential or fiduciary relationship existed. Even if decedent may have been confused around that time, this “would not establish that a confidential or fiduciary relationship existed between Michael and decedent.”