## Facts

- Steven A. Miner dated the daughter of Glenn H. Burren; Miner and Burren remained close friends after the relationship ended.
- After Burren’s divorce, Burren began dating Miner’s mother, and Burren’s relationship with Miner continued.
- Miner later became a lawyer, and Burren continued to trust Miner.
- In November 2003, Burren inherited more than $800,000 in assets.
- Soon after the inheritance, Burren added Miner to Burren’s bank account as a joint account holder.
- In 2004, Burren executed a will naming Miner as executor and dividing Burren’s estate into five equal shares: one share to each of Burren’s three children and one share to each of Miner’s two children.
- Over the next several years, Burren wrote a series of checks to Miner totaling almost $500,000.
- In 2006, Burren executed powers of attorney naming Miner as Burren’s agent for both healthcare and property.
- Miner later testified that he could not remember why Burren wrote checks for such large amounts, but claimed he cashed the checks and returned the cash to Burren.
- Miner acknowledged Burren did not obtain independent legal counsel before adding Miner to the joint account or making the large transfers.
- After Burren died, Miner filed the 2004 will in probate court.
- Burren’s children (and a guardian acting for minor heirs) contested the will and sought recovery of the funds, alleging undue influence and breach of fiduciary duties.

## Issues

1. Whether Miner’s relationship with Burren (including as Burren’s attorney and agent under powers of attorney), combined with Miner’s substantial benefit under the will and related transactions, created a presumption of undue influence that shifted the burden to Miner.
2. Whether Miner rebutted any presumption of undue influence by clear and convincing evidence showing the will, joint account arrangement, and large transfers were voluntary, fair, and made with full understanding, including independent advice.
3. Whether the circuit court properly ordered Miner to repay nearly $500,000 to the estate and properly awarded prejudgment interest on the recovered amount.

## Decision

- The appellate court held the evidence supported applying a presumption of undue influence based on the fiduciary or confidential relationship and Miner’s substantial benefit from Burren’s will and transactions.
- The court held Miner did not rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence, relying in part on the lack of independent advice and the trial court’s assessment that Miner’s explanations for the checks were not credible.
- The court upheld invalidation of the will and upheld the order requiring Miner to repay the estate roughly $500,000 representing the disputed transfers.
- The court upheld an award of prejudgment interest as part of making the estate whole, while addressing the proper calculation of interest consistent with the record and applicable standards.
- The court therefore affirmed the judgment in its core holdings, with any modification limited to technical aspects of the interest computation.

## Legal Principles

- A fiduciary or confidential relationship (including attorney-client and agent-principal relationships) can give rise to a presumption of undue influence when the fiduciary receives a substantial benefit from the principal.
- When the presumption applies, the beneficiary-fiduciary bears the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the transaction was the product of the principal’s free will and was made with full knowledge and fairness.
- Independent advice to the principal is a significant factor in evaluating whether a fiduciary has met the clear-and-convincing standard in transactions that benefit the fiduciary.
- Trial courts may order restitution of improperly obtained transfers from a fiduciary and may award prejudgment interest to compensate the estate for the time value of money wrongfully retained, subject to proper calculation.

## Conclusion

In *In re Estate of Burren*, the Illinois Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s decision to invalidate Burren’s will and require attorney-fiduciary Steven Miner to repay nearly $500,000 obtained through a joint account arrangement and large checks, because Miner’s fiduciary role and substantial benefit triggered a presumption of undue influence that Miner failed to rebut by clear and convincing evidence; the court also sustained prejudgment interest as part of the estate’s recovery, subject only to correct computation.


In re Estate of Burren, 994 N.E.2d 1022 (2013)