The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:
- Competency challenge ailing spouse’s execution
of documents reinstated
JOHNSON
v. MARKVE, 2022 S.D. 57:
The
facts in this case are somewhat intricate.
H
& W (Ken and Susan) met in their golden years and entered into a prenuptial
agreement found on the internet. W was worth $1 million and H was worth $1.8
million. The agreement is not challenged
in this litigation, but I found this fact interesting.
W
became seriously ill, thereafter executing a quitclaim deed to W & H as
joint tenants and she also executed a general Power of Attorney naming H as her
agent. After W’s death, W’s brother
(Gus) filed this action challenging W’s competency at the time she executed the
deed and created the trust.
For
a brief (and perhaps inadequate) “rest of the story,” see the 1st
and last paragraphs of the opinion reproduced here:
[¶1.] Acting as the personal
representative of the Estate of Susan Markve, Gustav Johnson commenced this
action against Kenneth Markve, alleging a variety of claims including undue
influence, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, statutory fraud, and common
law fraud. The circuit court granted Kenneth Markve’s motion for summary
judgment after determining that there were no genuine disputes of material fact
as to any of the claims. The Estate appeals, and we affirm in part and reverse
in part.
* * *
[¶77.] Ken may well believe he
has a strong case in his effort to resist the Estate’s claims of incapacity,
undue influence, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty, and we express no
opinion in this regard. Suffice it to say that Ken’s evidence is not of such a
character that it eliminates issues of material fact relating to the Estate’s
claims, particularly when we review the facts in the light most favorable to
the Estate. Neither we, nor the circuit court, can weigh the strength of the
parties’ evidence, the reasonableness of Ken’s actions, or the credibility of
any witness as matters of law. These questions must be submitted to a fact
finder. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
The
Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice
Salter.
This
decision may be accessed at
