## Facts

- Lewis A. Simoneau executed a 1997 will and trust under which RBC Ministries was the residual beneficiary.
- In November 2004, Simoneau executed a later will naming Barbara Tompkins as residual beneficiary; the will was admitted to probate, and Tompkins was appointed personal representative.
- In June 2005, RBC filed a petition to revoke probate alleging (1) lack of testamentary capacity and (2) undue influence in procuring the 2004 will.
- Undisputed evidence showed Tompkins had a confidential relationship with Simoneau and was substantially involved in the 2004 will’s preparation and execution, including drafting it, arranging witnesses, being present at execution, and retaining possession of the executed will.
- Tompkins moved for summary judgment, contending RBC could not prove undue influence and asserting evidence that Simoneau was coherent and aware at execution.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment for the will proponent was improper where undisputed facts created a presumption of undue influence and the proponent did not conclusively rebut that presumption.
2. Whether evidence of the testator’s coherence and awareness at execution conclusively negates undue influence as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment on RBC’s undue-influence claim and remanded for further proceedings on that issue.
- The court held that undisputed facts established a presumption of undue influence, shifting the burden to Tompkins to rebut it.
- The court concluded Tompkins’s evidence did not conclusively eliminate genuine issues of material fact regarding undue influence.
- The court affirmed without comment the trial court’s rulings on the remaining issues, including testamentary capacity.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is reviewed de novo and is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
- In a Florida will contest, a presumption of undue influence arises when a substantial beneficiary has a confidential relationship with the testator and is active in procuring the will; the presumption shifts the burden of proof to the will’s proponent.
- Undue influence concerns coercion or overpersuasion that destroys or hampers the testator’s free agency, and it may exist even where the testator appears coherent and aware.
- When a presumption of undue influence is triggered, the proponent must rebut it with evidence so conclusive that no reasonable factfinder could find undue influence to prevail on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court required a trial-level determination of undue influence because undisputed facts triggered a burden-shifting presumption against the will proponent, and the proponent’s capacity-focused rebuttal did not conclusively resolve factual disputes about whether the testator’s free will was overborne.


RBC Ministries v. Tompkins, 974 So. 2d 569 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2008)