Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneytrialburden of prooffiduciarytrust
attorneytrialfiduciarytrust

Related Cases

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 176 L.Ed.2d 1098, 78 USLW 4479, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6731, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8047, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 375
View Case »
F.T.C. v. Assail, Inc., 410 F.3d 256, 74 USLW 3132, 2005-1 Trade Cases P 74,798
View Case »
Farese v. Scherer, 342 F.3d 1223, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1000
View Case »
Malonis v. Harrington, 442 Mass. 692, 816 N.E.2d 115
View Case »
Fike v. Grant, 39 Ariz. 549, 8 P.2d 242
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Estate of Rothenberg, 176 Ill.App.3d 176, 530 N.E.2d 1148, 125 Ill.Dec. 739

Facts

Louise Rothenberg, the mother, executed a land trust document and subsequently amended it to remove her first daughter, Louise Koehler, as a beneficiary, naming only her second daughter, Lois Siebrandt, and grandchildren. The first daughter alleged that her mother lacked testamentary capacity and was unduly influenced by the second daughter when these changes were made. The trial court found that the mother was competent at the time of the trust's execution and that no fiduciary relationship existed between the second daughter and the mother.

Louise Rothenberg, the mother, executed a land trust document and subsequently amended it to remove her first daughter, Louise Koehler, as a beneficiary, naming only her second daughter, Lois Siebrandt, and grandchildren.

Issue

Did the trial court err in finding that the mother was mentally competent and not under undue influence when she executed the trust amendments?

Did the trial court err in finding that the mother was mentally competent and not under undue influence when she executed the trust amendments?

Rule

Once a fiduciary relationship has been shown, the law presumes that any transaction between the parties by which the fiduciary has profited is fraudulent. The burden then shifts to the fiduciary to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the transaction was not the result of undue influence.

Once a fiduciary relationship has been shown, the law presumes that any transaction between the parties by which the fiduciary has profited is fraudulent. The burden then shifts to the fiduciary to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the transaction was not the result of undue influence.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented regarding the mother's mental state at the time of the trust's execution. Testimonies from various witnesses, including attorneys and family members, indicated that the mother was competent and aware of her decisions. The court concluded that the first daughter did not meet the burden of proof required to establish undue influence or lack of competency.

The court analyzed the evidence presented regarding the mother's mental state at the time of the trust's execution. Testimonies from various witnesses, including attorneys and family members, indicated that the mother was competent and aware of her decisions.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the second daughter, finding that the evidence did not support the claims of undue influence or lack of mental competency.

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the second daughter, finding that the evidence did not support the claims of undue influence or lack of mental competency.

Who won?

Lois Siebrandt prevailed in the case because the court found that the first daughter failed to establish her claims regarding undue influence and mental incompetency.

Lois Siebrandt prevailed in the case because the court found that the first daughter failed to establish her claims regarding undue influence and mental incompetency.

You must be