## Facts

- John and Joyce Moore, an elderly married couple with declining health, were parents of four adult children and owned a farm, homestead, and multiple tracts of farmland.
- In 1999, John and Joyce created the John A. and Joyce E. Moore Revocable Living Trust and transferred the family real estate into the trust as part of an estate plan intended to treat their children relatively evenly.
- Their son, Steven Moore, was the only child who farmed and lived on the land, increasingly managed farm operations, and was heavily relied upon by his parents as their health worsened.
- John and Joyce executed powers of attorney and related directives that placed Steven in a position of trust over their financial and medical affairs (including as a successor decisionmaker when one spouse died).
- In 2014, while John was on his deathbed and Joyce was seriously ill (including a period of hospitalization), contracts were executed to sell trust property—including the homestead and additional farmland—to the Moores’ grandson, Jebidiah Moore (Steven’s son).
- Joyce contended Steven exerted pressure and used his position to procure the contracts at terms far below market value, with minimal down payment, low interest, and long payment periods—terms that substantially reduced what would remain for Steven’s siblings under the trust plan.
- Evidence also indicated Steven warned Joyce that her other children would sell off the land and ruin the family farm, and that he did not inform his siblings about the transactions affecting trust assets.
- After John died, Joyce (individually and as trustee) and the trust sued Steven and Jebidiah in Kansas district court to set aside the contracts, asserting undue influence and related theories (including incapacity as to certain transactions).
- The case was tried to a jury, which returned verdicts for Steven and Jebidiah after receiving instructions that placed the burden on the plaintiffs to prove undue influence.
- Joyce and the trust appealed, arguing Kansas law required a burden shift once a confidential or fiduciary relationship and a benefiting transaction were shown, and that the instructions misstated the law.

## Issues

1. Whether Steven’s confidential or fiduciary relationship with his parents—coupled with a transaction that favored his lineal descendant—created a presumption of undue influence under Kansas law.
2. If the presumption arose, whether the burden shifted to Steven (and the defendants) to prove the transactions were fair, voluntary, and free from undue influence.
3. Whether instructing the jury that the plaintiffs bore the burden to prove undue influence was reversible error, and whether the proper appellate remedy was rescission rather than a new trial.

## Decision

- The Kansas Court of Appeals held that the circumstances established a confidential or fiduciary relationship sufficient to trigger a presumption of undue influence concerning the land-sale contracts.
- The court ruled that the jury was improperly instructed on the burden of proof because, once the presumption applied, the defendants bore the burden to rebut undue influence by showing the transactions were made in good faith and were fair.
- Reviewing the record under the correct burden-shifting framework, the court concluded the defendants did not rebut the presumption.
- The court reversed the judgment for Steven and Jebidiah and remanded with directions for the district court to enter judgment for Joyce and the trust rescinding the land sale(s) in accordance with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A confidential or fiduciary relationship—such as one created by a power of attorney or a relationship of trust and dependence—can support a presumption of undue influence when the fiduciary (or the fiduciary’s close family) receives a substantial advantage from a transaction with the dependent person.
- Once a presumption of undue influence arises, the burden shifts to the party benefiting from the transaction to prove the agreement was the product of the grantor’s free and voluntary act and was fair and made in good faith.
- Jury instructions that place the burden of disproving undue influence on the wrong party, where the presumption applies, constitute reversible error when the burden allocation could affect the verdict.
- Rescission is an available remedy when a contract is procured through undue influence, returning the parties to their pre-transaction positions as equity requires.

## Conclusion

Moore v. Moore held that a son’s position of trust and authority over his ailing parents triggered a presumption that land-sale contracts favoring his family were the product of undue influence; because the jury was misinstructed on the burden of proof and the defendants did not rebut the presumption, the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed and ordered rescission on remand.


Moore v. Moore, 429 P. 3d 607, 50 Kan. App. 2d 301 (2018)