Challenges to a trust; Undue influence; MCL 700.7406; Rebuttable presumption; Lack of capacity; Motion to file a second amended petition; Delay; Futility; Motion for reconsideration; MCR 2.119(F)(3)

The court concluded that even assuming that a presumption of undue influence existed, petitioner failed to show that respondent exerted undue influence on the decedent (Irene) when she executed the trust at issue (her 2015 Trust). It found that the trial court did not err in granting respondent summary disposition or in denying petitioner’s motions to file a second amended petition and for reconsideration. Petitioner was one of Irene’s children. Respondent is Irene’s grandson. The 2015 Trust named him the successor Trustee and “provided that, upon Irene’s death, the Trustee was to distribute the” trust property to her grandchildren. Petitioner challenged the 2015 Trust for undue influence and lack of capacity. The affidavit of Irene’s attorney indicated “that he met alone with Irene when discussing the substantive elements of the trust, and he did not see evidence that Irene was incapable or improperly influenced.” Affidavits by petitioner’s sisters showed “that Irene executed the 2015 Trust without undue influence, explaining that the 2015 Trust accorded with Irene’s stated intentions and that [she] did not lack capacity when executing it. The affidavits that petitioner submitted do not demonstrate that respondent, or any one else, subjected Irene to threats or coerced her in a way that destroyed her free will. The affidavits by the men who knew Irene in Dearborn do not support petitioner’s claims because it appears that Irene was no longer living in Dearborn when she executed the trust.” As to petitioner’s reliance “on a visit she allegedly had with Irene around the time” the 2015 Trust was created, her “recounting of that visit does not include descriptions of Irene as being threatened or coerced or unable to execute the 2015 Trust.” The court also concluded that records showed “that Irene, who was in her 70s and 80s through these relevant years, had various physical and mental health diagnoses, and took medications, but not that she lacked capacity at the time that she executed the 2015 Trust.” As to the motion to file a second amended petition, it was untimely and the court also found that it would have been futile. As to the motion for reconsideration, the probate court “properly determined that petitioner failed to demonstrate that [it] made a palpable error.” Affirmed.