Opinion ID: 900278
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Standard of review and analysis of an undue influence issue.

Text: [¶ 11.] The issue of whether undue influence exists is a question of fact for the trial court to determine. In re Estate of Madsen, 535 N.W.2d 888, 891 (S.D.1995). We will not set aside a trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. In re Estate of Elliott, 537 N.W.2d 660, 662 (S.D.1995) (citing SDCL 15-6-52(a); In re Estate of Till, 458 N.W.2d 521, 523 (S.D.1990); In re Estate of Weickum, 317 N.W.2d 142, 145 (S.D.1982); In re Estate of Hobelsberger, 85 S.D. 282, 289, 181 N.W.2d 455, 458 (1970)). A trial court's finding is clearly erroneous if, after reviewing the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made[.] Id. (citations omitted). All conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the trial court's determinations. Till, 458 N.W.2d at 523. The credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be accorded their testimony, and the weight of the evidence must be determined by the trial court and we give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to observe the witnesses and the evidence. Elliott, 537 N.W.2d at 662. We review any documentary or deposition evidence under a de novo standard of review. Id. [¶ 12.] Under our settled law, to establish the existence of undue influence a will contestant must prove four elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) decedent's susceptibility to undue influence; (2) opportunity to exert such influence and effect the wrongful purpose; (3) a disposition to do so for an improper purpose; and (4) a result clearly showing the effects of undue influence. Elliott, 537 N.W.2d at 662-63 (citations and internal quotations omitted). [¶ 13.] However, a presumption of undue influence arises when there is a confidential relationship between the testator and a beneficiary who actively participates in preparation and execution of the will and unduly profits therefrom. Madsen, 535 N.W.2d at 892 (citations and internal quotations omitted). When such a presumption arises, the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the beneficiary to show he took no unfair advantage of the decedent. In re Estate of Metz, 78 S.D. 212, 222, 100 N.W.2d 393, 398 (1960). The ultimate burden remains on the person contesting the will to prove the elements of undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence. Madsen, 535 N.W.2d at 893. [¶ 14.] Because Anne attacks and criticizes the test for undue influence used by the trial court, and because the test has not always been clearly stated by us, we take this opportunity to clarify the test by stating it correctly: the burden of going forward with the evidence in an undue influence case does not shift to the beneficiary unless a presumption of undue influence is established.