50 State Undue Influence Project: Michigan Undue Influence Expert Definitions
In an effort to provide a better understanding for what undue influence expert psychologists look for when forming opinions about whether undue influence occurred in the execution of a will, trust, beneficiary designation, or other contractual document, I am highlighting the statutes, case law, and jury instructions specific to all 50 states. Each will be in its own blog post. Twenty-second up, Michigan.
In re Hannan’s Estate, 315 Mich 102, 123; 23 NW2d 222 (1946):
A trust or will is only invalidated by undue influence when the decedent’s free agency was overcome to the extent that the will or trust expressed the desires of the someone other than the testator.
Kar v. Hogan, 251 N.W.2d 77 (1976):
The party alleging undue influence in the execution of a testamentary document must present evidence that the grantor was subjected to threats, misrepresentation, undue flattery, fraud, or physical or moral coercion sufficient to overpower volition, destroy free agency and impel the grantor to act against his inclination and free will.
The presumption of undue influence is brought to life upon the introduction of evidence which would establish:
The existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the grantor and a fiduciary;
The fiduciary of an interest which he represents benefits from a transaction; and
The fiduciary had an opportunity to influence the grantor’s decision in that transaction.
The ultimate burden of proof regarding undue influence remains with the party who alleges that it occurred.
In re: Karmey Estate, 658 N.W.2d 796 (2003):
The presumption of undue influence is not applicable to marriage.
Proof of motive, opportunity, or even the ability to control the grantor is not sufficient to establish undue influence in the absence of affirmative proof that it was exercised.
In re Wood Estate, 374 Mich 278, 288–289; 132 NW2d 35 (1965):
A confidential or fiduciary relationship includes people such as trustees, guardians, agents, and attorneys, but it also includes relationships were “there is confidence reposed on one side, and the resulting superiority and influence on the other.”
Persons' Estate, 346 Mich. at 532, 78 N.W.2d 235:
The conduct of the chief beneficiary of a will before or after the will’s execution may be relevant to whether undue influence was exerted.
In re Langlois Estate, 361 Mich 646, 652; 106 NW2d 132 (1960):
Undue influence may be shown by indirect and circumstantial evidence, but it must be evidence of probative force beyond mere suspicion.