## Facts

- Erma Carson executed a 1985 will leaving her residuary estate to her grandnieces, Marcia Kruse and Mary Johnson, if a nephew-in-law predeceased her.
- Muriel Paananen, a volunteer at the retirement facility where Erma lived, became Erma’s close companion and increasingly handled Erma’s personal and financial affairs.
- In 1987, Erma executed a new will and a revocable trust that ultimately favored Paananen as remainder beneficiary after the deaths of Erma, her husband, and the nephew-in-law.
- Paananen arranged for her own attorney to draft the 1987 instruments rather than using Erma’s prior attorney.
- Paananen attended meetings with the drafting attorney, handled communications after the initial conference, and retained possession of the executed documents.
- Erma’s psychiatrist testified Erma suffered from Alzheimer’s disease and was susceptible to undue influence.
- Evidence showed Paananen attempted to restrict the grandnieces’ access to Erma and kept the 1987 plan secret from them.
- After Erma’s death, the grandnieces petitioned to revoke probate of the 1987 will and to invalidate the 1987 revocable trust for undue influence.
- The trial court revoked probate and invalidated the trust, finding Paananen exercised undue influence; Paananen appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the 1987 will resulted from undue influence.
2. Whether the revocable inter vivos trust could be invalidated for undue influence under standards comparable to those applied to wills, given its testamentary function.
3. Whether the trial court’s ruling conflicted with Florida undue-influence precedent addressing revocable trusts.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment revoking probate of the 1987 will and invalidating the 1987 revocable trust.
- The court held the record contained competent, substantial evidence supporting undue influence, including a confidential relationship, active procurement, secrecy, and efforts to exclude natural heirs.
- The court rejected the argument that revocable trusts are insulated from undue-influence challenges, distinguishing prior precedent on materially different facts.
- The court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations and fact-finding and declined to reweigh evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Undue influence may be established through circumstantial evidence showing a confidential relationship coupled with active procurement of the challenged instrument.
- Factors supporting active procurement include selecting the drafting attorney, controlling attorney communications, attending execution-related meetings, and retaining possession of executed documents.
- Evidence of the donor’s susceptibility (including cognitive impairment), secrecy about the plan, and exclusion of close family may support a finding of undue influence.
- A revocable inter vivos trust that operates as a will substitute may be set aside for undue influence under the same general analysis used to invalidate a will.
- Appellate review of undue-influence findings is limited to whether competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s determination.

## Conclusion

The court upheld invalidation of both a will and a revocable trust where a non-relative confidant actively arranged and controlled the estate-planning process, benefited from an atypical disposition, and the settlor was medically vulnerable, making the trial court’s undue-influence finding supported by competent, substantial evidence.


Paananen v. Kruse, 581 So. 2d 186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1991)