In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Arlan Edward BETHUREM, Deceased.
Anita Herrera Perez; Sandra Kurtz; and Vicki S. Preston, Respondents. Ines Caraveo, Appellant,
Hawkins Folsom & Muir and Gordon R. Muir, Reno, for Appellant.
Holland & Hart LLP and Richard L. Elmore, Tamara Reid, and J. Robert Smith, Reno, for Respondents Anita Herrera Perez and Sandra Kurtz.
John F. Kirsch, Reno, for Respondent Vicki S. Preston.
J. Douglas Clark, Reno, for Amicus Curiae State Bar of Nevada, Probate and Trust Law Section.
BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.
In this appeal, the beneficiary of a will challenges a district court order invalidating the will as the product of the beneficiary's undue influence. A rebuttable presumption of undue influence is raised if the testator and the beneficiary shared a fiduciary relationship, but undue influence may also be proved without raising this presumption. As a matter of first impression in Nevada, we hold that in the absence of a presumption, a will contestant bears the burden of proving undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence. Because we conclude that the respondent-will contestants failed to meet this burden of proof, we reverse the district court's order invalidating the will as the product of undue influence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Arlan Bethurem died in December 2008. The special administrator of his estate petitioned to have the estate set aside without administration according to Arlan's  2007 will. Arlan's stepdaughters opposed the petition, arguing that a beneficiary of the 2007 will had unduly influenced Arlan. The testimony before the probate commissioner revealed the following facts.
Arlan married his wife Bertha in 1971, and the couple resided in Reno. Bertha had three children from a prior marriage, respondents Sandra Kurtz and Anita Herrera Perez, and a son who is not a party to this action. Bertha and Arlan raised the three children together. In 2004, Arlan executed a will bequeathing his estate to Bertha. In the event that Bertha did not survive him, Arlan's will divided his estate equally between his three stepchildren and a granddaughter.
In late 2005, Bertha became ill and Arlan sought assistance with her care. Bertha's sister, appellant Ines Caraveo, traveled to Reno from her home in Texas to help care for Bertha. Upon arrival in Reno, Ines asked Sandra and Anita to assist with Bertha's care, either physically or financially. Neither was able to do so. Ines became angry with Sandra and Anita for failing to care for Bertha. Sandra and Anita both testified that Bertha said in telephone conversations that she did not like how Ines was speaking to Arlan about their inability to provide care.
Bertha died in May 2006. Ines accompanied Arlan to make funeral arrangements with a priest. The priest testified that Arlan was grief-stricken but lucid at the time of this meeting, and that Arlan expressed disappointment that Sandra and Anita had not been more supportive during Bertha's illness. Sandra and Anita attended Bertha's funeral, where they felt ostracized by family members and other funeral attendants. After Bertha's funeral, Ines returned to Texas but stayed in contact with Arlan through daily telephone conversations. Arlan did not speak to Sandra for several months or to Anita for ...