RBC MINISTRIES v. Tompkins
2008 WL 398821, 974 So. 2d 569 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a will contestant establishes facts that give rise to a rebuttable presumption of undue influence, the issue cannot be resolved on a motion for summary judgment. The burden shifts to the will's proponent to prove the nonexistence of undue influence, which requires a weighing of evidence that is improper at the summary judgment stage.
Facts:
- In September 1997, Lewis A. Simoneau executed a will and trust that named RBC Ministries as the residual beneficiary.
- Barbara Tompkins later developed a confidential relationship with Simoneau.
- In November 2004, Tompkins drafted a new will for Simoneau on her home computer, which named her as a residual beneficiary.
- Tompkins was present when Simoneau expressed his desire to make this new will and also when he executed it.
- Tompkins secured the witnesses for the will's execution.
- After the will was executed, Tompkins maintained possession of it.
Procedural Posture:
- Lewis A. Simoneau's November 2004 will was admitted to probate in a Florida trial court, and Barbara Tompkins was appointed as the personal representative of the estate.
- RBC Ministries, the beneficiary of a prior will, filed a petition in the trial court to revoke probate, alleging the 2004 will was procured by undue influence.
- Tompkins moved for summary judgment, arguing RBC Ministries could not prove its claim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Tompkins, concluding there was no material issue of fact regarding undue influence.
- RBC Ministries (Appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, with Tompkins (Appellee) as the responding party.
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 the establishment of a rebuttable presumption of undue influence against the proponent of a will preclude the entry of summary judgment in that proponent's favor?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Canady
Yes. The establishment of a rebuttable presumption of undue influence precludes summary judgment in favor of the will's proponent. A presumption of undue influence arises when a party shows that a substantial beneficiary under a will occupied a confidential relationship with the testator and was active in procuring the will. Here, Tompkins conceded she was a substantial beneficiary and had a confidential relationship with the decedent, Lewis A. Simoneau. The undisputed facts—that Tompkins drafted the will, was present at its execution, secured the witnesses, and kept the will—demonstrate that she was active in procuring it, thereby establishing the presumption of undue influence. This presumption shifts the burden of proof to Tompkins to establish the nonexistence of undue influence. Determining whether this burden has been met requires weighing evidence and assessing credibility, which is the function of a fact-finder at trial, not a judge on summary judgment. Therefore, summary judgment was improperly granted.
Analysis:
This case reinforces a critical procedural limitation on summary judgment in the context of will contests. By holding that the establishment of the presumption of undue influence creates a triable issue of fact by definition, the decision ensures that will contestants who meet this initial threshold are guaranteed their day in court. It solidifies the principle that rebutting such a presumption is a matter of evidentiary weight and credibility, which cannot be adjudicated on a paper record. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for will proponents facing undue influence claims to terminate litigation early, thereby strengthening protections for testators who may have been vulnerable to exploitation.
