Legal Opinion
Upman v. Clarke
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided June 6, 2000No. 120, Sept. Term, 1999PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILNER, Judge.
Under Maryland common law, there are two very different burdens and standards of proof that may be applicable when a gift is challenged on the ground that the donee exercised undue influence over the donor. As we shall explain, when the challenged gift is an inter vivos one—a present gift made during the donor’s lifetime—and the person attacking the gift establishes that a confidential relationship existed between the donor and the donee, there is a presumption against the validity of the gift, and the burden shifts to the donee to establish, by clear and convincing evidence,…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Raimi v. FurlongDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997
- Haynes v. First Nat'l State Bk. of NJSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
- Griffith v. DiffenderfferCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1879
- Sellers v. QuallsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Hancock v. Savings Bank of Balto.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1977
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Thompson v. UBS Financial Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
- Brass Metal Products, Inc. v. E-J Enterprises Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2009
- Shabazz v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2005
- Ingersoll v. IngersollDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
- UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. ThompsonCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2014
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.