In re Burke
82 A.D. 2d 260, 441 N.Y.S.2d 542, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11347 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Sufficient circumstantial evidence of a confidential relationship, opportunity, motive, and active participation in the procurement of a will by a beneficiary is enough to create a question of fact for a jury on the issue of undue influence, especially when the testator is elderly and infirm.
Facts:
- Maurice Burke, an 88-year-old widower, had a 1971 will prepared by his attorney of 20 years, Sanford Leeds, which left the bulk of his estate to his nieces and nephews.
- In late 1977, Burke became a resident at an unlicensed nursing home operated by Margaret Miller.
- In July 1978, a nurse's aide, Debbie Shearer, overheard Miller telling Burke on several occasions that his attorney, Leeds, was trying to swindle him out of his money.
- On August 9, 1978, Burke was hospitalized with pneumonia and leukemia. While ill, Miller conveyed to Leeds that Burke wanted to sell his house and give her the money to build a room for him, a plan Leeds advised against.
- While Burke was critically ill, a new attorney, Charles Banks, who had never met Burke, was contacted under disputed circumstances involving Miller and Burke's doctor, Franklin Brosgol.
- Between August 11 and August 23, 1978, Banks drafted three successive wills for Burke. The final will devised Burke's house to Miller free of any liens and named new residuary beneficiaries, substantially changing the prior plan.
- During this same period, Miller obtained a power of attorney from Burke, sold some of his belongings and kept the money, and Burke's long-time attorney, Leeds, was barred from visiting him in the hospital.
Procedural Posture:
- Following Maurice Burke's death, a will dated August 23, 1978 was submitted for probate in the Surrogate's Court of Westchester County.
- Burke's nieces and nephews (Kathleen Joy, Henrietta Ball, and Wally May), acting as contestants, filed objections to the will, alleging undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity, and improper execution.
- A contested probate trial was held before a jury in the Surrogate's Court.
- At the conclusion of the contestants' case, the will's proponent moved to dismiss the objections and for a directed verdict to admit the will to probate.
- The Surrogate's Court (trial court) granted the proponent's motions, dismissed the objections, and issued a decree admitting the will to probate.
- The contestants (appellants) appealed this decree to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does sufficient evidence of undue influence exist to create a question of fact for a jury when an elderly, ill testator, after allegedly being told his long-time attorney was swindling him, is isolated and uses a new attorney connected to his caregiver to execute a new will that substantially benefits that caregiver?
Opinions:
Majority - Gibbons, J.
Yes. Sufficient credible evidence was adduced at trial to create a question of fact for the jury on the issue of undue influence. The court reasoned that undue influence is rarely proven by direct evidence and must often be inferred from circumstances. Here, a jury could find that a confidential relationship existed between the testator, Burke, and his caregiver, Miller, which she exploited for her own gain. Evidence such as Miller allegedly slandering Burke's long-time attorney, the suspicious procurement of a new attorney who drafted a will benefiting Miller, Burke's weakened physical and mental state, and his isolation from his trusted advisor, collectively created an issue of fact as to whether the will was the product of Miller's influence rather than Burke's own free will. Therefore, the trial court erred in taking the issue away from the jury.
Analysis:
This decision underscores the principle that claims of undue influence, especially those involving vulnerable elderly individuals and their caregivers, are highly fact-sensitive and should generally be decided by a jury. The court emphasizes that a combination of circumstantial evidence—a confidential relationship, the testator's susceptibility, the beneficiary's active role in the will's procurement, and an unnatural testamentary disposition—is sufficient to defeat a motion for a directed verdict. This holding strengthens protections for the elderly by ensuring that suspicious circumstances surrounding the creation of a will are subject to the scrutiny of a fact-finder, rather than being dismissed as a matter of law.
