When Can a Trial Court Dispose of an Undue Influence Claim by Summary Judgment?

A June 6, 2017 opinion from the Court of Appeals of Georgia, Slosberg v. Giller, regards a family probate dispute and undue influence. Although this is not a Florida trust and estates case, probate litigators and trust attorneys frequently encounter similar lawsuits. Furthermore, Slosberg v. Giller provides us, whether we are Georgia probate lawyers or Florida trust attorneys, with a great definition of undue influence and some of the requirements of an undue influence claim.  Palm Beach trust and estates lawyers are often hired to “fight” changes to wills, trusts, or estate planning documents that may have been the product of undue influence. Undue influence claims in Florida probate courts are common, and experienced West Palm Beach estate lawyers know how to successfully litigate them. When can a trial court dispose of an undue influence claim by summary judgment? Can a trial court limit the scope of evidence to the time periods in which the father executed the challenged documents?

In Slosberg v. Giller, the appellate court defines undue influence: ” Undue influence which overturns an otherwise legal contract or will is the exercise of sufficient control over the person, the validity of whose act is brought into question, to destroy his free agency and constrain him to do what he would not have done if such control had not been exercised.”  Furthermore, ” to maintain a claim of  undue influence, the requisite control must operate on the mind of the person at the time he or she is executing the document in question.”

Here, an elderly father revoked a power of attorney and made changes to his estate planning strategy. The elderly man’s son, Robert Slosberg, filed a lawsuit against his sisters, Suzanne Giller and Amy Seidner. Slosberg claimed that their father’s changes to his estate plan were due to diminished mental capacity and undue influence. Giller and Seidner counterclaimed and, on the parties cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court found that there was “no evidence of mental incapacity on the part of the father or that he was under any undue influence at or near any of the pertinent times the operative documents… were signed by the father.” Slosberg appealed. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in disposing of Slosberg’s claim of undue influence by summary judgment. Why did the trial court err in disposing Slosberg’s claim? Was it wrong that the trial court limited the scope of evidence to the time periods in which the father executed the challenged documents? To read the entire case, click here.