In re Estate of Burren
994 N.E.2d 1022, 2013 IL App (1st) 120996 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an attorney in a fiduciary relationship with a client benefits from a transaction or will, a presumption of undue influence arises. To rebut this presumption, the attorney must present clear and convincing evidence that the transaction was fair and the client acted freely, with key factors being whether the client received independent legal advice, the attorney made full disclosure, and adequate consideration was given.
Facts:
- Steven Miner, an attorney, maintained a close personal and professional relationship with Glenn Burren, an older man whom Miner represented in legal matters and who was dating Miner's mother.
- In 2003, after Burren inherited over $800,000, Miner acted as his attorney for related real estate transactions, and Burren made his bank account a joint account with Miner.
- In January 2004, at a party, Burren signed a typewritten will that Miner brought to the table for execution. The will named Miner as executor and devised two-fifths of Burren's estate to Miner's two children.
- Between 2003 and 2007, Burren signed checks payable to Miner totaling nearly $500,000.
- Miner prepared several letters on his own letterhead, which Burren signed, acknowledging Miner's receipt of large sums of money.
- In 2006, Burren executed documents prepared by Miner that granted Miner power of attorney for both healthcare and property.
- Glenn Burren died in 2007, at which time his estate, valued at over $800,000 in 2004, had dwindled to less than $350,000.
Procedural Posture:
- Following Glenn Burren's death, Steven Miner filed Burren's 2004 will for probate in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
- The trial court admitted the will to probate and appointed Miner as the executor of the estate.
- Burren’s children, Marion Stewart and Linda Kemp (petitioners-appellees), filed a petition to contest the will and to remove Miner as executor.
- The children also filed a citation to recover assets from Miner, seeking the return of nearly $500,000.
- Miner's new counsel filed an untimely jury demand for the citation proceeding, which the trial court granted the children's motion to strike.
- Following a bench trial, the court found the will invalid due to undue influence and entered a judgment against Miner for $498,659.75 plus prejudgment interest.
- Steven Miner (respondent-appellant) appealed the judgment invalidating the will and the judgment on the citation to recover assets to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District.
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 a presumption of undue influence arise when an attorney in a fiduciary relationship with a client receives substantial benefits through a will benefiting his children and through large inter vivos monetary transfers, and is that presumption rebutted without clear and convincing evidence that the client received independent legal advice?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice Neville
Yes, a presumption of undue influence arises, and No, that presumption was not rebutted. A presumption of undue influence arises from transactions benefiting an attorney in a fiduciary relationship with a client. Regarding the will, the presumption was established by showing: (1) a fiduciary relationship where Burren depended on and trusted Miner; (2) a substantial benefit conferred on Miner through his children; and (3) Miner's active participation in the will's execution. For the financial transfers, the attorney-client relationship itself created the presumption because Miner benefited. Miner failed to rebut this presumption with clear and convincing evidence. The court found Miner's uncorroborated testimony that he returned the money not credible. Crucially, Miner presented no evidence that Burren received independent legal advice, that Miner made a full and frank disclosure, or that there was adequate consideration for the transfers. An affectionate relationship is insufficient to overcome the presumption.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the stringent fiduciary duties imposed upon attorneys in their dealings with clients. It clarifies that a close personal relationship does not excuse an attorney from the heavy burden of rebutting the presumption of undue influence when they benefit from a client's transactions or will. The ruling emphasizes that securing independent legal counsel for the client is a critical, if not essential, factor in proving that the client's actions were voluntary and free from influence. This case serves as a strong precedent reinforcing that courts will closely scrutinize such arrangements and will invalidate them absent clear and convincing evidence of fairness and the client's uncoerced intent.
