Opinion ID: 2561911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Did the district court apply the proper burden of proof?

Text: [¶ 16] In this issue, the appellant urges this Court to address a question that was not presented to the district court that is whether the conveyances should be set aside because the appellant was subjected to undue influence. The appellant raises this argument on appeal because unlike the analysis of mental capacity, when challenging a conveyance on grounds of undue influence, the burden of proof may shift to the recipient of the property to prove that the transaction was valid. Once the person who is seeking to void the transaction on the basis of undue influence has established that a confidential relationship existed between the grantor and the grantee, the burden of proof shifts to the recipient of the property to prove that the transaction was fair and conducted in good faith. Krafczik v. Morris, 2009 WY 53, ¶ 20, 206 P.3d 372, 377 (Wyo.2009), quoting Marchant v. Cook, 967 P.2d 551, 557 (Wyo.1998); In re Estate of Short, 785 P.2d 1167, 1170 (Wyo. 1990). The appellant contends that permitting him to argue undue influence on appeal (thereby shifting the burden to the appellees to prove that the transactions were proper) is appropriate because the questions of mental capacity and undue influence are so closely related. [¶ 17] With the exception of certain jurisdictional or fundamental issues, we will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. Meima v. Broemmel, 2005 WY 87, ¶ 56, 117 P.3d 429, 447 (Wyo.2005). Because the claim of undue influence was not raised below, the appellees had no opportunity to address that question. If the burden of proving the validity of the transactions shifts to the appellees, as appellant urges, significant due process issues would arise as the appellees were not given the opportunity to present arguments and evidence to meet that burden. Furthermore, it is questionable whether the appellant would have a legitimate claim for undue influence under the facts presented in the record. Because we do not find it to be a jurisdictional or fundamental issue, we will not address the appellant's undue influence claim on appeal.