## Facts

- In 1938, Lawrence Einar Burkland and his wife, Lenore Burkland, executed wills.
- Under Lawrence’s 1938 will, if Lenore did not survive him, Lawrence’s estate was to be split: one-half to his brother, Bert Burkland, and one-half to Lenore’s brothers, George and Robert Anderson.
- Lenore died in August 1969.
- In October 1969, Lawrence executed another will that included a specific bequest to his sister, Beda Boyle.
- Also in October 1969, Lawrence renewed an acquaintanceship with Margaret Hill, and their relationship developed quickly.
- During the relationship, Hill often stayed with Lawrence at his lake house and his apartment.
- Hill obtained significant access to Lawrence’s finances, including access to his safety deposit box.
- Hill and Lawrence jointly owned a $15,000 time certificate of deposit.
- Evidence showed that during the relationship Lawrence began avoiding family members and friends with whom he had previously been close.
- Hill told Lawrence that Bert’s wife had made derogatory comments about Lawrence.
- On July 31, 1970, Lawrence executed a new will while described as relatively healthy; Hill was present at the execution.
- The July 31, 1970 will left all of Lawrence’s estate to Hill.
- If Hill predeceased Lawrence, the will provided that the estate would be divided equally between George Anderson and Hill’s sister, Lowrane Cook, whom Lawrence had never met.
- The contingent gift to Cook matched provisions in Hill’s own will and in her deceased husband’s will, which Hill had helped develop.
- Lawrence died suddenly on September 17, 1970.
- Hill had possession of the will and filed it the next day; she also began moving furniture out of Lawrence’s apartment soon after his death.
- Bert Burkland petitioned to annul the July 31, 1970 will, alleging it resulted from undue influence.
- The trial court annulled the will for undue influence, and Hill appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a presumption of undue influence (based on a confidential relationship, Hill’s involvement connected to the will’s making/execution, and an unnatural disposition) sufficient to uphold the trial court’s annulment of the July 31, 1970 will.
2. If the presumption arose, whether Hill produced sufficient evidence to overcome it and show the will reflected Lawrence’s free and voluntary act.

## Decision

- The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment annulling the July 31, 1970 will.
- The court held the circumstances supported a presumption of undue influence, including Hill’s confidential relationship with Lawrence, her connection to the will’s execution, and the will’s sharp departure from Lawrence’s prior estate plan.
- The court concluded Hill did not present evidence sufficient to counterbalance the presumption, and the trial court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A presumption of undue influence may arise in a will contest when the contestant shows: (1) a confidential relationship between the testator and the beneficiary, (2) the beneficiary’s active participation in preparing or procuring the will, and (3) an unnatural or suspicious disposition favoring the beneficiary.
- Once the presumption arises, the burden shifts to the will’s proponent to produce evidence sufficient to counterbalance the presumption and establish that the will was the testator’s free, voluntary, and well-understood act.
- Appellate review gives deference to the trial court’s findings and credibility determinations; an undue-influence finding will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record.

## Conclusion

Because Hill’s confidential relationship with Lawrence, her connection to the will’s making and execution, and the will’s unusual departure from Lawrence’s long-standing family-centered testamentary plan supported a presumption of undue influence that Hill failed to rebut, the Court of Appeals affirmed the annulment of the July 31, 1970 will.


In re Estate of Burkland, 504 P.2d 1143 (1972)