Riskey v. Riskey - 2018 ND 214, 917 N.W.2d 488

Rule:

In a will contest, undue influence has been defined as the substitution of the purpose and intent of one exercising influence for the purpose and intent of the testator. To prove undue influence in this context, a will contestant must establish 1) a testator subject to undue influence, 2) the existence of the opportunity to exercise undue influence, 3) a disposition to exercise undue influence, and 4) a result that appears to be the effect of undue influence.

Facts:

Annette Riskey's husband, Gilbert Riskey, died in December 2003. Within months of the death, Rodney Riskey brought Annette to attorney David Peterson. A new trust was drafted which provided Rodney a purchase option to acquire land, bins and a house owned by Annette after her death for the sum of $65,000, although the aforementioned properties were worth more than the said sum. The trust was signed by Annette, as settlor, and Rodney, as co-trustee, Jeffrey Riskey was appointed co-trustee, but he did not know of the purchase option until 2015. Upon Annette’s death, Rodney executed a purchase agreement, which Jeffrey, as co-trustee, would not sign. Rodney consequently filed the present action seeking an order to compel Jeffrey to execute the purchase option required under the 2004 Trust’s provision. In his answer, Jeffrey alleged that Rodney had improperly, illegally, and unduly influenced Annette during the formation of the Trust, which caused the creation of Trust provisions that were not Annette’s personal desires and intentions. Jeffrey, together with his other siblings, commenced a separate action seeking to reform the Trust. The Riskeys claimed that the trust provision containing the purchase option was invalid since Rodney had exerted undue influence over their mother in creating the Trust. Rodney moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. According to the district court, the Riskeys had failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment on their undue influence claim. The Riskeys challenged the decision.

Issue:

Did the district court err in granting summary judgment in favor of Rodney on the Riskey’s undue influence claim?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that Rodney was entitled to summary judgment compelling Jeffrey, his brother, to execute a trust's purchase option because the facts, viewed most favorably to the brother and the other family members, did not show the purchase option provision was the effect of Rodney’s undue influence on their mother, as the Riskey’s did not raise the rebuttable undue influence presumption in N.D.C.C. § 59-18-01.1. According to the court, nothing showed the result of the trust appeared to be the effect of undue influence, the purchase option carried over from the parties' parents' wills, nothing showed that Rondey exerted influence over his mother when the trust document was executed, and, while the Riskeys said their mother wanted to be "fair," nothing showed what a fair distribution would have been in light of prior testamentary documents.