Jennings' Estate, In re

Decision Date09 December 1952
Docket NumberNo. 58,58
Citation55 N.W.2d 812,335 Mich. 241
PartiesIn re JENNINGS' ESTATE. MILLS et al. v. LAKE.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

John Morth and Kurth & Kurth, Detroit, (Carroll C. Grigsby, Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.

Dudley & Patterson, Pontiac, for appellees.

Before the Entire Bench, Except NORTH, C. J.

DETHMERS, Justice.

This is a will contest, between nephews and nieces of the testator, tried, on certification from the probate court, by the circuit judge without a jury. Defendant, the proponent, appeals from a judgment which holds provisions of the will naming her sole beneficiary and executrix void because of undue influence allegedly exercised by her but which sustains the clause therein revoking former wills under which defendant had been a major beneficiary. On trial plaintiffs, the contestants, abandoned their claim of mental incompetency and relied solely on the claim of undue influence.

It is urged that because defendant for a number of years looked after testator's business and property, collecting rents, dividends and mortgage payments for him, and paying taxes, repair bills, etc., a fiduciary relationship existed between them, giving rise to a presumption of undue influence on defendant's part. We are mindful of the holdings in In re McMaster's Estate, 163 Mich. 210, 128 N.W. 259, and Scheibner v. Scheibner, 220 Mich. 115, 189 N.W. 913, and others of like import, which plaintiffs cite as authority for their claim of a fiduciary relationship here. At the same time, it is to be noted that in In re Cottrell's Estate, 235 Mich. 627, 209 N.W. 842, and In re Lacroix's Estate, 265 Mich. 59, 251 N.W. 319, it was held that the mere assisting with and conducting of testator's business affairs does not give rise to a fiduciary relationship. We think the term should be held to mean what the word 'fiduciary' implies and that the relationship exists only when there is a reposing of faith, confidence and trust and the placing of reliance by one upon the judgment and advice of another. No such situation was established here.

Assuming that a fiduciary relationship existed, the resulting presumption would be rebuttable. We are cited to Scheibner v. Scheibner, supra, and other cases indicative of a rule that under the presumption the burden of proof on the subject of undue influence shifts from plaintiffs to defendant. The matter was clarified in Hill v. Hairston, 299 Mich. 672, 1 N.W.2d 34, followed on this point in several subsequent decisions. We there held that there is no shifting of the burden of proof under the presumption; that, while it establishes a prima facie case in the absence of testimony on the subject, it has no weight as evidence, is rebuttable, and cannot be weighed against evidence. To the same effect is the earlier case of In re Cochrane's Estate, 211 Mich. 370, 178 N.W. 673. The presumption was held to have been rebutted and overcome by a showing that the will had been executed after independent legal counsel in In re Bromley's Estate, 113 Mich. 53, 71 N.W. 523; In re Grow's Estate, 299 Mich. 133, 299 N.W. 836; and In re Teller's Estate, 288 Mich. 193, 284 N.W. 696. In the instant case the presumption, if any, was rebutted by evidence that testator consulted with the attorney who drew the will and was alone with him while he stated the provisions he desired incorporated into his will; that after it was so drafted he had the attorney read the will and reread some of its paragraphs to him; that when the attorney gathered that testator was satisfied with the will he suggested that they proceed with its execution, but that testator objected, stating that he anticipated that some of his relatives might contest the will and, therefore, he desired to sign it in the presence of witnesses more intimately acquainted with him; that, accordingly, he took the will to his home town banker and executed it there before officials of the bank with whom he was acquainted and whom he asked to sign as attesting witnesses and, finally, by facts disclosing past relationships affording testator ample reasons for favoring defendant to the exclusion of plaintiffs.

In support of its finding of undue influence the trial court pointed, as do plaintiffs, to testimony to the effect that when testator made his will in 1946, two years prior to his death, he was 89 years old, suffered from deafness and poor vision, and acted dull; that, at a time not disclosed in the record, he told his housekeeper in defendant's presence that the latter wanted him to turn his property over to her so that she could better care for him and the property, that he was afraid she was going to get all his property away from him and that he should provide for his other nieces and nephews also; that testator did turn over a considerable amount of his property to defendant in his lifetime; that during the last six years of testator's life defendant visited him frequently, looked after his affairs, as previously stated, hired housekeepers for him, had access to and often opened his safety deposit box, drew money out of his bank account after it had been made joint; that she frequently accompanied testator to his lawyer's office when he executed wills and deeds...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • McCauley's Estate, In re
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • May 11, 1966
    ...In re Reddaway's Estate, 214 Or. 410, 329 P.2d 886 (1958); In re Blake's Will, 21 N.J. 50, 120 A.2d 745 (1956); In re Jennings' Estate, 335 Mich. 241, 55 N.W.2d 812 (1952). See generally, 1 Page, Wills §§ 15.1 to 15.3 (Bowe-Parker edition, 1960); 6 Powell, Real Property 948 (1958). Since un......
  • Papazian v. Goldberg (In re Mardigian Estate)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • June 21, 2018
    ...upon the contestant, and not the proponent. Such, we think, is the settled law in this State."). See also In re Jennings' Estate , 335 Mich. 241, 244, 55 N.W.2d 812 (1952) (stating that "there is no shifting of the burden of proof under the presumption" and "while it establishes a prima fac......
  • United States v. Reed
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 24, 1985
    ...by one party in another and a great disparity of position and influence between the parties to the relation"); In re Jenning's Estate, 335 Mich. 241, 55 N.W.2d 812, 813 (1952) ("a fiduciary relationship exists only when there is a reposing of faith, confidence and trust and the placing of r......
  • U.S. v. Margiotta
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • July 27, 1982
    ...428, 370 N.Y.S.2d 943, 947 (2d Dep't. 1975), aff'd mem. 40 N.Y.2d 936, 390 N.Y.S.2d 57, 358 N.E.2d 882 (1976); In re Jennings Estate, 335 Mich. 241, 244, 55 N.W.2d 812, 813 (1952) (no fiduciary relationship absent a showing of confidence, trust and reliance); Trustees of Jesse Parke William......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT