Will contest; Undue influence; Presumption of undue influence; Fiduciary relationship; Power of attorney; Opportunity to influence; In re Estate of Karmey; Burden of production to rebut; MRE 301; In re Mardigian Estate; Bill & Dena Brown Trust v Garcia; Credibility; Weight of evidence; Harmless factual errors; Motion for reconsideration; MCR 2.119(F)(3)

The court held that the probate court did not err by finding that the 2022 will was the product of undue influence and did not abuse its discretion by denying reconsideration. The decedent had a 2016 will that left his estate to his sisters, but after he became ill, appellant-niece obtained power of attorney, began caring for him, helped prepare a 2022 will leaving her 100% of his estate, and later sought to probate that will. The probate court found a presumption of undue influence and, after an evidentiary hearing, ruled that appellant failed to rebut it. On appeal, the court held that the presumption was “brought to life” because appellant had a fiduciary relationship with the decedent, benefited from the 2022 will, and had an opportunity to influence him while living with and caring for him. The court rejected appellant’s argument that there was no direct evidence of undue influence because the relevant question was whether she rebutted the presumption. It also deferred to the probate court’s finding that appellant’s and her husband’s testimony “lacks credibility,” and held that the probate court adequately explained why it gave little weight to the recording in which the decedent said he had “decided what to do a long time ago.” The court concluded that the probate court’s two factual errors were harmless and that appellant’s reconsideration argument merely repeated rejected arguments. Affirmed.