Karin Huffer established a trust in 2017 that divided her estate equally between her two sons, Jason and Jordan Huffer, while granting Jason control of her business. In 2018, while hospitalized and terminally ill, Karin amended her trust to leave most of her estate to Jason and a small retirement account to Jordan. The amendment was executed in the hospital in the presence of a notary and Jason’s acquaintance, attorney Bill Rudge. Karin’s attorney, Jack McQuitty, had advised against executing the amendment under those conditions. Karin passed away shortly after signing the 2018 trust.
After Karin’s death, Jordan discovered the amended trust and petitioned to invalidate it, claiming that Jason exerted undue influence over their mother. The probate court held evidentiary hearings in 2023, where both brothers testified, along with experts and witnesses who had observed Karin’s condition before her death. The probate court ruled in Jordan’s favor, finding that Jason unduly influenced the 2018 trust amendment and reinstated the 2017 trust that divided the estate equally.
At trial, the court admitted expert testimony from psychologist Sheri Gibson, who conducted a retrospective evaluation of Karin’s susceptibility to undue influence. Gibson testified that Karin’s illness, dependence on Jason, and secrecy surrounding the 2018 trust indicated she was highly vulnerable to manipulation. Jason objected to Gibson’s qualifications and methodology, arguing that her opinions lacked sufficient scientific foundation. The probate court overruled his objection after confirming that her analysis was consistent with peer-reviewed standards recognized by the American Psychological Association.
On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals reviewed whether the probate court abused its discretion by admitting Gibson’s testimony. The appellate court held that the trial court had properly acted within its gatekeeping authority under Colorado Rule of Evidence 702. It determined that Gibson’s methodology was reliable and widely accepted in the field of geropsychology.
The appellate court then reviewed the probate court’s conclusion that Karin was unduly influenced. Evidence showed that Jason had significant control over Karin’s access to others, was present during communications with her attorney, and facilitated the signing of the amended trust without independent legal review. The appellate court noted that while assistance from an attorney can reduce the likelihood of undue influence, it does not automatically eliminate it.
Jason contended that the court misapplied Colorado law by relying on an incorrect legal standard and considering irrelevant factors such as Karin’s affection for him and her deteriorating health. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, finding that the probate court properly applied the standard set forth in In re Estate of Everhart (2021), which defines undue influence as conduct that deprives a person of free will and results in a disposition different from what they otherwise would have made.
On February 27, 2025, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s order invalidating the 2018 trust and reinstating the 2017 trust. The appellate court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding of undue influence and that the expert testimony was properly admitted. The case was remanded to the probate court for a determination of appellate costs in favor of Jordan Huffer.
If you need help contesting or defending a will or trust, or wish to safeguard your estate from disputes, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC assists with estate planning matters. Contact our team to learn how we can help you establish clear, enforceable estate plans and protect your intentions.