Undue Influence in a Michigan Will: When the Caregiver Becomes the Heir

An elderly or seriously ill person may legitimately want to reward the relative who is caring for them, with a larger share of the estate, an interest in the house, or everything. Michigan law does not stand in the way of that choice. But when the caregiver also controls the person’s finances under a power of attorney and takes part in changing the estate plan, the resulting will or deed becomes vulnerable to challenge, not because the caregiver necessarily did anything wrong, but because the process no longer looks like an independent decision.

A Michigan Court of Appeals decision from September 4, 2026, In re Estate of Lawrence Lowell Washington, Jr., shows exactly how that vulnerability plays out, and what it means for anyone advising a client, or reviewing their own estate plan with an attorney, where a caregiver stands to inherit.

A note on how to read this case: it is unpublished, meaning it is not binding precedent on future Michigan courts. But it applies settled Michigan law on undue influence in a clear, fact-heavy way, which makes it a good teaching example even though it does not itself make new law.

What happened in the Washington case

Lawrence Washington was hospitalized with cancer in May 2022. During that hospitalization, his sister Gloria, who held a joint bank account with him, withdrew funds from his accounts; when Lawrence found out, he had her removed from the accounts. Shortly after that incident, his niece, Latricia Wright, obtained a power-of-attorney form online and had Lawrence sign it. The notarization was handled by Latricia’s brother, who was shown only the signature page.

After Lawrence was released from the hospital in mid-June 2022, Latricia moved into his home and began caring for him around the clock. Within days, two things happened: a deed was signed adding Latricia as a joint owner of Lawrence’s house with rights of survivorship, and a new will was executed leaving Latricia 100% of the estate. Latricia’s husband, who moved into the home around the end of June, witnessed the will.

Lawrence’s prior will, signed in 2016, had split the estate evenly between his two sisters. Days before he died in July 2022, one of those sisters and Latricia’s brother visited to ask about the house. Lawrence told them he had “decided what to do a long time ago” but did not mention the new will or the deed.

After Lawrence’s death, Latricia petitioned to probate the 2022 will. His sister objected, and the probate court held an evidentiary hearing. The probate court found the 2022 will was the product of undue influence and refused to admit it, leaving the 2016 will in place. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The legal standard: the presumption of undue influence

Michigan law recognizes two ways to prove undue influence. One is direct evidence that the person was subjected to “threats, misrepresentation, undue flattery, fraud, or physical or moral coercion sufficient to overpower volition, destroy free agency and impel the grantor to act against his inclination and free will” (In re Estate of Karmey, 468 Mich 68, 75 (2003)).

The other, and the one that decided the Washington case, is a rebuttable presumption that arises when three elements are established:

• a confidential or fiduciary relationship existed between the person and the beneficiary,
• the beneficiary (or someone they represent) benefits from the transaction, and
• the beneficiary had an opportunity to influence the decision.

(Karmey, 468 Mich at 75.) Once those three elements are established, the burden of producing evidence shifts to the beneficiary to rebut the presumption (MRE 301; In re Mardigian Estate, 502 Mich 154, 166 n 6; 917 NW2d 325 (2018) (opinion of Markman, J.); Bill & Dena Brown Trust v Garcia, 312 Mich App 684, 701; 880 NW2d 269 (2015)). The ultimate burden of proving undue influence, however, remains with the person challenging the document.

How the court applied it

All three elements were easy for the court to find on these facts:

• Confidential or fiduciary relationship: Latricia held power of attorney for Lawrence when the 2022 will was signed.
• Benefit: the 2022 will left her the entire estate, and the deed made her a joint owner of the house.
• Opportunity to influence: at the time the will was signed, Latricia was living in Lawrence’s home and caring for him around the clock. The court also noted she drafted the will herself and was present when it was signed.

The trial court also pointed to surrounding circumstances that reinforced the picture: Latricia and her husband were in financial difficulty at the time; her attentiveness to Lawrence began only once he became seriously ill; the power of attorney was notarized by her own brother, who was shown only the signature page, with no witnesses to the signing itself.

Why the rebuttal evidence did not hold up

Latricia testified that she and Lawrence had a long relationship going back years, that he had told her as early as 2017 he intended to leave her the house, and that he asked her to draft the new will himself. Her husband corroborated her account, and she pointed to a recording of a conversation, days before Lawrence’s death, in which he told visiting relatives he had “decided what to do a long time ago.”

The probate court found this testimony not credible, largely because it was uncorroborated by anyone outside the household and came from the two people who benefited most. On the recording, the court drew a pointed distinction: when directly asked about the house by relatives, Lawrence never said he had recently signed a new will leaving everything to Latricia. He gave a vague answer instead. The Court of Appeals deferred to that credibility call on appeal, since it is “the sole province” of the factfinder “to determine the weight of the evidence.”

The lesson is not that a caregiver’s own account is worthless. It is that when the only evidence supporting a late-in-life change comes from the people who benefit from it, a court is entitled to find that insufficient, especially against the backdrop of a power-of-attorney holder drafting her own inheritance and being present when it was signed.

This case is about process, not outcome

The problem in Washington was not that a caregiver inherited a house and an entire estate. Michigan law does not prohibit that outcome, and courts do not second-guess a competent person’s decision to reward whoever cared for them. The problem was how the decision was reached: the same person who held Lawrence’s power of attorney, who stood to benefit from the new will, and who was providing his day-to-day care also arranged for the will’s drafting and was present when it was signed. Once those pieces line up, a court does not need direct evidence of fraud or coercion. A presumption of undue influence arises, requiring the beneficiary to come forward with evidence sufficient to rebut it.

Michigan law does not prohibit a caregiver from inheriting. What draws a court’s scrutiny is process: the same person holding the power of attorney, standing to benefit, and taking part in drafting and signing the new document.

Practical safeguards that reduce the risk of a challenge

A few practical safeguards would have changed that legal picture substantially, whether or not they would have changed what Lawrence ultimately wanted for his estate. None of the following is a rule that determines whether a will is valid; Michigan law does not require any of it. Each one is a protective practice that reduces the risk of exactly the kind of challenge Washington describes:

• Use independent counsel, and keep the beneficiary out of the room. The lawyer preparing the will or trust should meet with the client alone, take instructions directly from the client, and not receive drafting instructions relayed through the person who stands to inherit.
• Separate the caregiver/agent from the drafting and execution process. Holding power of attorney already satisfies the first element of the presumption. When that same person also benefits under the new document and has day-to-day access to the person making it, the other two elements become easy for a court to find. Keeping that person out of drafting, out of the room at signing, and out of choosing the witnesses or notary does not eliminate scrutiny, but it removes much of what a court points to as opportunity.
• Document capacity and intent contemporaneously. A note in the attorney’s file about the client’s stated reasons, a brief capacity assessment where warranted, or a conversation witnessed by someone with no stake in the outcome can go a long way if the plan is ever challenged.
• Favor disinterested witnesses and a notary with no connection to the beneficiary. In Washington, the will was witnessed by the beneficiary’s spouse and the power of attorney was notarized by the beneficiary’s brother. Independent witnesses are one of the cheapest safeguards available, and their absence is exactly the kind of detail a court notices.
• Document the reasons for a significant change. Part of what hurt Latricia’s case was that Lawrence’s comments shortly before his death did not corroborate her account of his intentions. When a longstanding estate plan changes substantially, contemporaneous documentation by independent counsel can provide evidence of what the client intended and why.
• Revisit the plan as circumstances change. A plan built around a new caregiving relationship deserves the same rigor as any other major life change, precisely because it is the fact pattern courts scrutinize most closely.

None of this is about distrusting caregivers or assuming they acted wrongly. It is about building a plan that can withstand scrutiny once the person who made it is no longer here to explain why, because in Washington, the outcome was never really the issue. The process was.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is undue influence in a Michigan will or trust contest?

Undue influence means a will, trust, or deed did not reflect the person’s free will because someone with power over them substituted their own wishes. Michigan courts can find it from direct evidence of coercion or fraud, or through a presumption that arises when a confidential or fiduciary relationship, a benefit to that person, and an opportunity to influence the decision are all shown.

Does having power of attorney automatically make a later will invalid?

No, but it is a significant factor. Holding power of attorney establishes the first element of the undue-influence presumption. Combined with a benefit to that person under the new document and an opportunity to influence the decision, such as living with and caring for the person, the presumption arises and shifts the burden to that person to produce rebuttal evidence, not to prove the document invalid outright.

Can a caregiver still inherit from someone they cared for?

Yes. Nothing in Michigan law bars a caregiver from being a beneficiary, and courts do not treat that outcome as improper on its own. What matters is process: whether the plan was prepared and executed in a way that is free from undue influence, ideally with independent counsel, disinterested witnesses, and the caregiver kept out of the drafting and signing process.

Related reading: Specific vs. general gifts in a Michigan will and Will vs. revocable living trust in Michigan.

Please note: This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Offices of Maynard F. Newman, P.L.L.C. In re Estate of Lawrence Lowell Washington, Jr. is an unpublished decision and is not binding precedent. Every estate is different, and outcomes depend on the specific facts; you should consult a qualified Michigan attorney about your own situation before acting. This content may also be considered attorney advertising.