Legal Opinion

Papazian v. Goldberg (In Re Mardigian Estate)

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 2018No. Docket 152655; Calendar 1PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Markman, C.J. (for affirmance).

**156 *329 At issue is whether the rebuttable presumption of undue influence is applicable when the decedent's attorney breaches Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 1.8(c), which generally prohibits an attorney from preparing an instrument giving the attorney or his or her close family a substantial gift. Appellants argue that a breach of MRPC 1.8(c) automatically renders an instrument void, while the appellee attorney argues that, rather than an invalidation of the instrument, a rebuttable presumption of undue influence arises in these circumstances. After…

2Cases cited50 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Terrien v. ZwitMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement, Marketing & Consulting Corp. v. Continental Biomass Industries, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Gillett v. Michigan United Traction Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1919

45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Law Offices of Jeffrey Sherbow, PC v. Fieger & Fieger, PCMichigan Court of Appeals · 2019
  2. Allen v. The Hanover Insurance GroupDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2021
  3. Carol Petra Bartosiewicz v. A2q LLCMichigan Court of Appeals · 2020
  4. Cary Investments LLC v. City of Mount PleasantMichigan Court of Appeals · 2022
  5. Law Offices of Jeffrey Sherbow v. Fieger & Fieger PcMichigan Supreme Court · 2021

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API