Will contest; Requirements of a valid will; MCL 700.2502; Testamentary capacity; MCL 700.3407(1)(c); In re Skoog Estate; Principle that appointment of a guardian is not conclusive of a testator’s capacity to validly draft & execute a will; In re Paquin’s Estate; Effect of proof of old age, physical weakness, or forgetfulness in showing a lack of mental capacity; In re Sprenger’s Estate; Undue influence; In re Karmey Estate; In re Peterson Estate; In re Williams Estate

The court held that the probate court did not err by declaring a will executed by the decedent invalid on the basis that she lacked testamentary capacity to execute it and that it was the product of petitioner’s undue influence. On appeal, the court rejected petitioner’s argument that the probate court erred by denying admission of the will because the contestants failed to overcome the presumption that the decedent possessed the requisite testamentary capacity to execute it. “[T]he evidence supports the probate court’s finding that [the decedent] was unable to plan and effect any testamentary conveyances, without prompting and interference from others.” It also rejected petitioner’s claim that the contestants failed to establish that the will was the product of undue influence. The probate court did not err when it found that petitioner “was not able to successfully rebut the presumption of undue influence.” Further, the contestants met their burden of proving undue influence. Affirmed.