Rosenberg v. Sanders

Summary

The Arizona Supreme Court held that post-execution statements are not a separate ninth factor in evaluating undue influence, but may be considered if relevant to an existing factor and admissible under the rules of evidence. Brandt's statements fourteen months after executing the beneficiary deed addressed only his later distrust and fear of Sanders, not his condition or circumstances when he signed the deed, and were therefore irrelevant. Because Rosenberg presented no evidence creating a genuine dispute that Sanders procured or exerted undue influence, the court affirmed summary judgment for Sanders and vacated the court of appeals' decision.