In re Scott

1

In re ESTATE OF SCOTT; IN RE MATTHEW G SCOTT TRUST. CHRISTOPHER G. SCOTT, Appellee, v. PHILLIP SPRAGUE, Appellant.

Nos. 360651, 360652, 360653, 360654

Court of Appeals of Michigan

December 21, 2023

UNPUBLISHED

Clare Probate Court LC No. 20-018127-DE; 20-018142-TV

Before: REDFORD, P.J., and SHAPIRO and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases,^[1] Phillip Sprague appeals the final judgment entered following a jury trial and the trial court's orders denying his postjudgment motions in two cases consolidated by the lower court: In Re Matthew G Scott, Case No. 20-018127-DE, which contested matters pertaining to decedent Matthew G. Scott's estate planning documents including the validity of his will and the disposition of his estate; and In Re Matthew G. Scott Trust, Lower Court No. 20-018142-TV, which contested matters pertaining to the validity of decedent Matthew G Scott's estate planning documents including the decedent's trust as amended before his death. In Docket No. 360651, Sprague appeals from the judgment entered in the case seeking to set aside Matthew G. Scott's will and denial of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for new trial. In Docket No. 360653, Sprague appeals from the judgment entered in the case to set aside Matthew's trust and denial of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for new trial. In Docket Nos. 360652 and 360654, Sprague appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion requesting the court's determination that it lacked jurisdiction over real property at issue in the two cases. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Matthew G. Scott (Matthew) died on July 30, 2020, at the age of 82. His two sons, Christopher G. Scott (Christopher) and Matthew T. Scott (Tad), and their families survived him. After his father's death, Christopher commenced two cases in the probate court by petitioning to set aside Matthew's will and contest the validity of his estate planning documents and the disposition of his estate, and by petitioning to set aside Matthew's trust and contest the validity of his estate planning documents after Christopher learned that Matthew appointed Sprague as the personal representative of the estate and as the successor trustee of Matthew's trust.

Matthew had significant health problems and periodically received medical care at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota during which he stayed with Christopher and his family. During July 2019, during such stay, Matthew fell down steps and suffered a traumatic brain injury which caused him significant physical and mental impairments. After months of hospital inpatient and outpatient care and rehabilitation, Matthew returned to Michigan and moved into an assisted living facility in Gladwin, Michigan, not far from his home, which he approved and selected with assistance from his family members. While living at the assisted living facility, Sprague, a neighbor who had worked for Matthew a decade earlier until they had a falling-out, renewed his acquaintance and frequently visited Matthew. Although Matthew initially appeared to enjoy his assisted living arrangement, over time his attitude and demeanor changed to the point that he displayed aggression and anger, and increasing paranoia about his living situation and closest family members. Staff at the facility noted that Matthew's demeanor changes correlated with Sprague's open hostility toward the facility and Matthew's sons which he communicated to Matthew. Sprague moved Matthew out of the assisted living facility to live with Sprague, and over his remaining months of life Matthew became isolated from his family.

During December 2019, Sprague arranged for Matthew to meet with lawyer, Joseph Barberi, to change his estate planning documents. In late February 2020, Matthew executed estate planning documents including an amended trust which designated Sprague as the successor trustee and a deed transferring his real property to himself from his trust with a provision that the property would be conveyed to Sprague upon Matthew's death. Matthew executed estate planning documents on July 9, 2020, while hospitalized just weeks before his death, including a new will and an amended and restated trust. The will appointed Sprague the personal representative of Matthew's estate and integrated the estate into the trust. The trust named Sprague as Matthew's successor trustee and provided for the distribution of money and a percentage of the value of the trust assets to Matthew's grandchildren, his church and Sprague, a combine and two tractors to Christopher, and a newly purchased skid loader to Sprague.

The petitions filed by Christopher alleged that Sprague influenced Matthew to distrust his sons and change his estate plan to benefit Sprague. After Matthew's death, Sprague took possession of Matthew's property, books and records, and his remains, and claimed the power to do so. The petitions asserted that the estate planning documents were invalid because Matthew lacked the capacity to create them and that all of the estate planning documents were the result of the undue influence Sprague imposed on Matthew to benefit himself. The petitions requested among other relief that the court set aside estate planning documents created after December 24, 2011, order Sprague to turn over all of Matthew's property including documents and records and copies of estate planning documents in his possession, restrain Sprague from using estate or trust property for fiduciary fees, legal fees, or costs until the matters were decided or settled.^[2]

After the parties conducted extensive discovery and the trial court ruled on various motions, the cases were tried to a jury in a five-day trial during which 15 witnesses testified. After the parties' counsel's closing arguments, the trial court inquired and they affirmed their satisfaction with the jury instructions and approval of the verdict form. The trial court instructed the jury. At the conclusion of instructing the jury, the trial court asked the parties' counsel if they were satisfied with the instructions as given. The parties' respective counsel affirmed their approval. The jury deliberated until instructed to go home and return the next morning to reconvene and continue deliberating. The trial reconvened the next morning, and after several hours of further deliberation the jury reached its verdict. The jury's verdict answered specific questions as follows:

1. Did Matthew G. Scott have the mental capacity to amend his Trust and make a deed on February 20, 2020?

____Yes X No

2. Was the Trust amendment and deed executed by Matthew G. Scott on February 20, 2020, the result of undue influence by Phillip Sprague?

__X__Yes __No

3. Did Matthew G. Scott have the mental capacity to make a Will and Trust on February 25, 2020?

____Yes X No

4. Were the Will and Trust executed by Matthew G. Scott on February 25, 2020, the result of undue influence by Phillip Sprague?

__X__Yes __No

5. Did Matthew G. Scott have the mental capacity to make a Will and Trust on July 9, 2020?

____Yes X No 6. Were the Will and Trust executed by Matthew G. Scott on July 9, 2020, the result of undue influence by Phillip Sprague?

__X__Yes __No

Later that day, the trial court entered judgment against Sprague and for Christopher based upon the jury's verdict.

Sprague moved for a determination that all acts and proceedings in the probate court were null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the real property which Matthew deeded to Sprague by a Lady Bird deed recorded February 25, 2020, because the title to the property passed to Sprague upon Matthew's death and was not a part of the probate estate, so that any action taken by the probate court lacked validity and the court could not strip Sprague of title to his property. Sprague also asserted that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he was not a party to the two cases and had not voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction. Christopher opposed the motion.

Sprague also moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or alternatively for a new trial. Sprague argued that Christopher failed to produce evidence of Matthew's mental state on the three days that he executed estate planning documents. He asserted that, given how little mental capacity a person must possess to make a will, Barberi and Mayes' testimonies sufficed to prove that Matthew had enough capacity to execute the documents. Sprague argued further that no evidence established that he exerted undue influence on Matthew or took advantage of him. Christopher also opposed that motion.

Christopher petitioned for the removal of Sprague as personal representative on the grounds that doing so served the best interests of the estate and Sprague intentionally misrepresented facts and mismanaged the estate. Christopher requested that the court appoint him the personal representative. Sprague opposed the motion.

After holding a hearing on the postjudgment motions, the trial court denied Sprague's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, and denied Sprague's motion regarding jurisdiction. Sprague now appeals.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We review de novo a trial court's decision regarding a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Taylor v Kent Radiology, 286 Mich.App. 490, 499; 780 N.W.2d 900 (2009). Motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury verdict in a civil case. Id. We review such evidence sufficiency challenges by reviewing the evidence and all legitimate inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. "Only if the evidence so viewed fails to establish a claim as a matter...