Mullin v. Brown
455 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 7, 115 P.3d 139, 210 Ariz. 545 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a presumption of undue influence arises in a will contest due to a confidential relationship, active procurement of the will, and principal beneficiary status, the burden of persuasion shifts to the proponent of the will to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was no undue influence.
Facts:
- Ralph Mullin executed a will and trust on June 10, 1995, which significantly changed his estate distribution.
- The 1995 will and trust left the majority of Ralph Mullin's estate to his grandson, Chris Mullin Jr.
- In previous wills, Ralph Mullin had intended to provide equally for his grandsons, Andrew Mullin and Chris Mullin Jr.
- Chris Mullin Jr. was in a confidential relationship with Ralph Mullin and was the primary beneficiary of the 1995 will and trust.
- Chris Mullin Jr. actively participated in procuring the 1995 will and trust by instructing Ralph Mullin's attorney and dictating terms.
- Ralph Mullin was seriously ill and hospitalized at the time the 1995 will and trust were drafted and executed, with the documents being prepared as a "rush job."
- The execution of the 1995 will and trust was concealed from Andrew Mullin, an interested party.
- Ralph Mullin died on August 3, 1995, and around a month prior, he deeded certain "oil and gas interests" to Chris Mullin Jr., with Chris Jr. drafting the deed.
Procedural Posture:
- Andrew Mullin brought a legal malpractice claim against his attorneys, Bradford Brown, Arthur Chapa, Richard Fields, and Edward Linden (appellants).
- The attorneys admitted negligence for failing to timely file a petition contesting Ralph Mullin's will and trust.
- The trial court denied the attorneys' motions for directed verdict (made at the close of Andrew's case and at the close of evidence).
- A jury determined that Andrew Mullin would have successfully contested the will and trust and awarded him $2,937,125 in damages.
- The attorneys moved alternatively for a judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or a remittitur.
- The trial court denied these motions.
- The attorneys appealed to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two.
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, once established in a will contest, shift the burden of persuasion to the will's proponent to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was no undue influence, or does it merely shift the burden of production of evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - FLÓREZ, Presiding Judge
Yes, a presumption of undue influence, once established in a will contest, shifts the burden of persuasion to the will's proponent to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was no undue influence. The court relied on the Arizona Supreme Court's decision in In re Estate of Shumway, which, though not explicitly overruling prior cases, implicitly established that the presumption of undue influence requires the proponent to overcome the presumption with clear and convincing evidence that the transaction was fair and voluntary. The court considered the language in Shumway to be integral to its reasoning regarding probable cause, not mere dictum, and affirmed its obligation to follow Arizona Supreme Court precedent. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of undue influence based on several factors, including Chris Jr.'s confidential relationship, active participation in drafting the will, the will's inconsistency with Ralph's prior plans, concealment of the will, hasty execution due to Ralph's illness, and Ralph's susceptibility to influence. The court also affirmed the jury's damage award, noting that the undue influence could extend to the transfer of other assets outside the will, such as the oil and gas interests deeded to Chris Jr.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the significant impact of a presumption of undue influence in Arizona will contests, holding that it shifts the burden of persuasion, not merely the burden of production. This places a substantially higher evidentiary burden on the proponent of a will once the presumption is established, making it potentially easier for contestants to challenge wills procured by beneficiaries in confidential relationships. The decision also underscores the binding nature of Arizona Supreme Court precedent, even when a change in legal interpretation is implicit rather than explicitly stated, reinforcing judicial hierarchy and the duty of lower courts to interpret and apply higher court rulings.
