In Re Estate of Haviland

¶1 Mary Haviland appeals a trial court’s decision invalidating her deceased husband’s will as the product of her undue influence. Mary 1 claims that the trial court should not have applied the factors identified in Dean v. Jordan 2 because they “have no meaningful application between a husband and wife.” She also assigns error to the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Because our Supreme Court has applied Dean to analyze a claim of a spouse’s undue influence, the trial court did not err by applying it here. And because substantial evidence in the record supports the trial…