IN RE: the Estate of John J. Keenan. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This estate dispute involves a decedent with diminished capacity whose second wife and adult children from the first marriage were long at odds with each other. The acrimonious relationship manifested in a tug-of-war over the inheritance of John J. Keenan's property, with John caught in the middle. Conflict persisted for nearly a decade following John's second marriage before reaching a crescendo, when several amendments to various estate planning documents were made over a 15-month period. The appointment of a guardian and conservator for John in 2015 finally halted the amendments until his death in 2020.

Following John's death, John's second wife, Marie Keenan, sought to admit a June 22, 2015 will to probate. Relevant to this appeal, Tiffany Keenan, Tracy McGuinness, Timothy Keenan, and Todd Keenan (collectively, the Keenan children) challenged the will and a contemporaneous revocation of John and Marie's prenuptial agreement, arguing both were the product of undue influence and therefore invalid. The district court rejected the Keenan children's claims and admitted the will to probate. On appeal, the Keenan children argue the district court arbitrarily disregarded undisputed facts and based its decision on bias toward Marie. Finding no error, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

The Keenan children challenge on appeal only the district court's determination as to the validity of two documents. However, a thorough recitation and review of the facts is necessary to determine whether the district court arbitrarily disregarded undisputed evidence and demonstrated bias toward Marie.

The early estate plan

John married Bernadine Keenan in 1959. They had four children together—Tiffany, Tracy, Timothy, and Todd. John and Bernadine farmed their entire married life. They gradually acquired additional land and owned 13 tracts totaling 1,985 acres at the time of Bernadine's death in an automobile accident on August 11, 2000.

In 1995, John executed a will prepared by his distant cousin and local attorney, Dennis Keenan. Under the terms of that will, John's entire estate was to pass to Bernadine if she survived him. If Bernadine predeceased John, then the estate would pass in equal shares to the Keenan children.

Following Bernadine's death, John formed the Bernadine A. Keenan Family, LLC, with his four children as members. John conveyed a 50 percent interest in five tracts of land to the LLC. He continued to farm the land and paid distributions to the Keenan children through the LLC. John continued to acquire land, including tracts named Hoch and Cheney. At trial, John's lawyer, Dennis; John's friend, Richard Devine; and Tiffany all testified that John's intent at the time of the will and Bernadine's death was to leave the land to his children. At the time of Bernadine's death, none of the Keenan children were actively involved in the farming operation.

John and Marie's marriage and the April 2005 prenuptial agreement

John met Marie McDuff in December 2003, after she had dated his son, Tim. Marie had been working as a local UPS delivery driver since 1981. John and Marie began dating in June 2004, and John proposed after three weeks. During their engagement, John and Marie traveled frequently together, including visits to Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Louisiana. Marie had been married twice before. In her second divorce, her attorney was Richard Brown, and her ex-husband's attorney was Dennis Keenan.

The day before John and Marie married, they signed a prenuptial agreement prepared by Dennis. Dennis testified that Marie did not want to sign the agreement and was “very upset about it.” Marie testified that she and John had never spoken about a prenuptial agreement. That day, Marie called Brown and met with him to review the prenuptial agreement in his office. When Brown received the drafted agreement, he told Marie he would need more time to review it and could not advise her to sign it. Marie signed it anyway.

John and Marie married in a church in Seward on April 16, 2005. Three days later, they added each other to their respective checking and savings accounts. In a conversation approximately two years after their marriage, John told his sister, Mary Lynn Tesar, that he intended to nullify the prenuptial agreement.

The December 2005 will

Marie testified that, in the summer of 2005, she and John wanted to update their wills. Marie explained that they went to Brown “because I don't care for Dennis Keenan.” Her testimony matched an exhibit showing Brown's timeline and his note that Marie and John approached him together about preparing new wills on August 2, 2005.

Brown prepared a rough draft of a will for John, but it was never finished. Instead, John went to Dennis to update his will. Marie stayed with Brown, who prepared a will leaving all of Marie's property to her two children because John had told Marie that he did not need her money.

Under John's December 2005 will, the tracts named Gilmore, Hoch, and Cheney, comprising 390 acres, would devise to Marie. The remaining acres were apportioned to the four children. Dennis testified that John intended to leave three parcels to Marie because she “deserved something.”

Tensions grow

In January 2006, John and Marie went on a trip that made stops in New Zealand, Australia, and Fiji. While they were away, Tiffany was scheduled to be in their house to remove any personal possessions belonging to her or that had belonged to Bernadine which she wished to keep. Instead, Tiffany built a shrine of Bernadine and John in one of the family rooms.

In February 2006, Tim began working at the farm under John's supervision. Between 2007 and 2011, John and Marie took several trips including to Hawaii, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, and Cozumel, Mexico. By the summer of 2011, John told Marie he wanted to stay home because he was concerned about Tim's work on the farm. While John went on a few short trips with Marie, he mainly encouraged her to travel without him so he could supervise Tim. Devine testified that “Tim's heart was not in the farming” and when Tim was left to work the farm by himself, the crop yields went down. John told Devine that his biggest frustration was that Tim was unwilling to “put in a full day's work.”

Signs of dementia

John was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2012, resulting in radiation and chemical treatments from July 2013 through November 2014. As early as July 2013, John complained of memory problems, ascribing them to the new medications. John told Tiffany in 2013 that he experienced memory loss and hoped his memory would recover. Tim gave a similar timeline, testifying that John's mental health began deteriorating in 2012 or 2013.

Neurologist Joseph S. Kass, M.D., testified that John experienced hot flashes, which is a common side effect of hormonal treatments for prostate cancer, but John's memory problems were likely unrelated. Kass explained that those issues should have resolved when John stopped the medication, demonstrating that the memory symptoms were unrelated to the medication. Kass testified that a patient with this level of impairment would be forgetful, impulsive, and could make decisions which were not well thought out. Further, a patient may also begin to show some behavioral issues including paranoia, mood dysregulation, and irritability. Despite the side effects, John completed the series of 42 radiation treatments and was proud that Marie took him to each appointment.

Although John's doctors had stopped hormone therapy by January 2014, John's memory issues persisted. John's medical records disclose continued memory loss in May and November 2014. Kass testified that John's complaints of memory loss could indicate cognitive impairment or mild dementia.

The district court referred to Kass’ review of John's medical records, deposition exhibits, and the pleadings, which gave a documented progression of John's mental decline up to a December 2015 diagnosis of moderately severe dementia. The district court observed that Kass “commented very pointedly that John's actions were often dictated by the ‘last man with him,’ ” leading Kass to conclude that John's mental deficits made him vulnerable to the undue influence of others.

The April 2014 will

In December 2013, John and Marie went to the county treasurer's office in the courthouse. Marie testified that they asked an abstracter named Amy McVey about how to make a deed, although Marie's testimony was vague about whether John wanted the deed to cover all his properties or just the two parcels he had acquired since their marriage. McVey prepared a quitclaim deed, but John did not sign it in 2013.

Tiffany testified that, in 2013, John had been complaining that Marie pulled the names of his parcels of land and wanted him to sign them over to her. John also told Tiffany that Marie charged thousands of dollars on their credit card every month. John asked Tiffany to come home and “take care of it.” In late March 2014, Tiffany came from Colorado, and Tracy traveled from Vermont to Kansas. Marie was away on vacation during their visit.

On April 1, 2014, John and all four children went to Dennis’ office. Dennis took notes describing John's displeasure with Marie for taking too many trips and spending too much money. John also complained that Marie was trying to get him to put her name on the real estate deeds. John wanted a new will which gave Marie what was required under the prenuptial agreement but nothing more, essentially disinheriting Marie and leaving John's entire estate to his four children. Dennis immediately prepared a new will, which John signed that day. Although Dennis noted that John was suffering some short-term memory loss, the district court found that the will was not the product of undue influence by anyone.

John had a briefcase containing various real estate deeds, and he told Tim to put them in a safe place away from Marie. The briefcase's deeds included family history going back into the 1800s. John told his family that the deeds were not safe because Marie would be returning home from vacation and wanted the land. Tiffany believed John was trying to protect the land by giving the deeds to Tim for safekeeping. Tiffany brought the briefcase to trial.

Marie testified about her travels and spending in the months before April 2014, generally denying that they had significantly increased. Kass testified about John's reaction to Marie's spending and travel. He acknowledged that John complained to his children about Marie's spending but had also told Marie to travel and approved of her trips and spending. Kass stated that it was a good example of mild stages of dementia because John said one thing to one person and then forgot he said it. The behavior showed increased changeability and impulsive reactivity.

The June 2014 will

After Tiffany and Tracy left the state, Dennis began communicating directly with Tim about John's estate. That is, Dennis sent Tim a letter discussing the tax implications of John's estate planning and invoiced services for John directly to Tim's home address. Dennis’ bill showed that he met with John, Tim, Tim's girlfriend, and an accountant on June 17, 2014. Dennis prepared a new will that day which gave Tim all the farming equipment and five parcels totaling 720 acres, with another 305 acres going to Todd, 320 acres to Tracy, and 310 acres to Tiffany. A trust was to be established for Marie's benefit.

A few days later, John signed the new will. John later told Devine that he did not understand that he was “cutting Marie out” of the will. The district court found that this will was not the product of undue influence because, although John was suffering from memory loss, he participated in preparing the new will with an eye toward minimizing tax consequences and because no false representations were made to John.

The September 2014 quitclaim deed

In September 2014, John and Marie met with Dennis about redoing John's will. Marie wanted to be sure she would receive the three parcels of land (Gilmore, Hoch, and Cheney) described in the 2005 will, as well as two new parcels (Grass and McCabe) John acquired during their marriage. Dennis described the meeting as contentious. He asked Marie to leave and she did. Before Marie left, she lectured Dennis not to let John sign anything because John was confused. Dennis noted in his file that John wanted to take care of Marie but did not want to give her five parcels of land. Dennis’ notes further reflect that John wanted “to keep his real estate in the family, as it's been in the family all these years, and he and his former wife built it all together.” Marie testified that, when she left the office and sat in the truck, she called Brown. While she was on the phone with Brown, John came out of the office, told her that Dennis refused to fix the will, and said, “I'm done with him.” The couple went to see Brown.

John and Marie told Brown about the 2005 will which gave Marie land and asked Brown to prepare a will giving Marie the house and some land. John stated that he was “pissed” at Tim and Dennis because the June 2014 will did not provide for Marie. Brown believed that he had an attorney-client relationship with John, testifying that John and Marie were his clients. Brown had represented Marie for “quite a while” before taking on John, but he considered them both clients and he maintained a client file for John.

The following week, John returned to Brown's office and told Brown he was still thinking about a new will. In the meantime, John signed a quitclaim deed to convey the Grass and McCabe parcels to himself and Marie as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The quitclaim deed was recorded in September 2014. The district court rejected the Keenan children's allegation that Marie and Brown exerted undue influence over John and found the deed to be valid and enforceable. By right of survivorship, Marie became the sole owner of the two tracts upon John's death.

The June 2015 prenuptial agreement revocation

On June 3, 2015, John and Marie went to Brown's office, where Brown presented them with wills he drafted from the consultation in September 2014. Although they did not sign the wills, John and Marie did execute notarized revocations of their prenuptial agreement. Brown testified he had no doubt John wanted to revoke the agreement, noting John's list of ways Marie had taken good care of him, including his medical needs. John told Brown the children never do anything and only reach out to him if they want money. The district court noted that John's sister, Mary Lynn, had a close relationship with John and told him he should never have asked Marie to sign a prenuptial agreement, to which he responded that he would get it nullified. The district court found that the prenuptial agreement revocation was duly executed under K.S.A. 23-2406 and the revocation was not the product of undue influence.

The June 2015 will

On June 22, 2015, John and Marie went back to Brown's office to sign the wills Brown gave them earlier that month. John's will separated out his interests in the LLC from the rest of his estate. The district court found the will passed John's interests in the LLC to his children, “specifically including the Gartung, Dralle, Boxwell, Krey, and BJ/JB parcels” and some specified smaller lots. It gave his mineral interests, machinery, tools, equipment, stocks, furniture, household goods, automobiles, and “the rest, residue and remainder of his estate, both real and personal, existing at his death” to Marie. The district court found that this will was duly executed.

The district court found that the will complied with the drafting requirements of K.S.A. 59-606, that it was prepared by Brown, and Brown received no devise or bequest from the will. The district court also found no undue influence because (1) the will was not a surprise or foisted on John, (2) John told Brown to prepare the will in September 2014 and John had Brown's finished product to review from June 3 to June 22, 2015, giving John adequate time to consider the will's provisions, and (3) John signed the will the same day he signed his answer to a garnishment directed at Tim and the LLC, demonstrating at least some motivation for John to sign a new will. The district court admitted the will to probate.

The June 2015 filing of the quitclaim deed

In October 2014, John had received notice of a wage garnishment on the LLC to collect $464,957.55 in back taxes owed by Tim. John was concerned about the risks posed by Tim's tax issues and their impact on the LLC, prompting Marie to advise John to convey his land to her in joint tenancy with John. Marie testified that she had many discussions with John and John's sisters about what he could do to protect his estate from being “sold off and squandered by the children.” But Marie admitted that neither she nor John's sisters had any background in estate planning or tax collection issues. Marie did not take John to see Dennis or Brown, the two attorneys they previously consulted on estate planning. Marie could not remember other options discussed to address the tax issue, other than transferring the land to a joint tenancy between John and her.

In January 2015, John signed powers of attorney and the quitclaim deed which had been prepared in December 2013 with McVey's assistance. These documents were notarized in a Dillon's supermarket. Although the deed was notarized in January, it was not recorded until June 29, 2015. The deed purported to convey title to all but two parcels of John's real estate, along with mineral rights to five of the parcels, to John and Marie as joint tenants with right of survivorship. On June 30, 2015, John learned of the deed being recorded. He became very disturbed, told Dennis he did not sign or file the deed, and signed an affidavit prepared by Dennis stating that the deed was a forgery.

The January 2015 quitclaim deed was unusual in that John signed with his middle name, which he typically did not do except on his passport. Marie testified the deed was the product of John's fear of the garnishment for Tim's unpaid tax bill, but the deed was signed in January 2015 and the garnishment order was not entered until June 2015. Further, the timing of the deed's filing was incongruous in light of John executing the new will just one week earlier, which separated out the five LLC parcels and two smaller parcels for his children. The district court noted that the deed itself did not include land descriptions, instead stating “See Exhibit A attached.” The exhibit contained no signature or other indication John had actually seen it. The district court found that “[t]he filing of this quitclaim deed on June 29, 2015, was not the free and voluntary act of John Keenan. It does not appear to have been his act at all.” The district court therefore found the deed to be invalid and unenforceable.

Dennis and Devine take action

On June 3, 2015, John and Marie revoked the prenuptial agreement and Brown presented them the new wills; John and Marie signed the new wills on June 22; the quitclaim deed from January was filed on June 29; and John went to Dennis’ office on June 30, 2015, to undo the filing of the January quitclaim deed and swear out an affidavit that the deed was a forgery. This flurry of activity in June 2015, particularly John's final trip to Dennis’ office on June 30, prompted Dennis to call Devine and tell him that Marie was attempting to steal John's land. Dennis asked Devine to bring John to Dennis’ office.

On July 2, 2015, at Dennis’ direction, Devine took John to see Dennis under the pretense of getting parts. Before going to Dennis’ office, Devine took John to Brown's office to get copies of the June 22, 2015 will and the June 3, 2015 prenuptial revocation. John, Dennis, and Devine all sat down for a meeting. Dennis told John that Marie planned to leave him, had drained his bank accounts, had put all his land in her name, and “had played John for a fool.” Hearing this conversation, Devine believed none of Dennis’ statements to John were accurate. Dennis asked John to sign several documents promising they would fix everything, and John complied. Devine testified that John seemed confused that morning, needing food and medication. Devine's testimony described the scene at Dennis’ office as “chaotic” and opined that John never really knew what was going on that morning.

Another attorney in Dennis’ office, Julie Carroll, also attended the same meeting. Her note to file states that John did not know about the will and prenuptial revocation he had signed in Brown's office several weeks earlier. According to Dennis’ file note, however, John at first told Dennis that those documents “didn't amount to anything” but, after reviewing them, John denied even signing them. Dennis attributed John's denial to John's difficulties with “competence and short-term memory.”

Dennis and Carroll discussed divorce with John. Carroll drafted divorce pleadings and a temporary order to remove Marie from the home. Dennis presented John with documents purporting to revoke his June 22 will and his prenuptial revocation. John signed both documents. John further wrote the word “Revoked” and signed copies of both the June 22 will and the revocation of the prenuptial agreement. Devine took John to the Stafford County courthouse for a hearing on the divorce action. At the hearing, Dennis presented testimony from John and Devine. Dennis also argued his assessment of John's marriage.

During John's testimony, the district court asked if Dennis had represented him as an attorney. John could not recall what Dennis did or what Dennis represented him on, only that Dennis had represented him before. When the district court asked John if he was married, he replied, “Well, apparently.” John testified that he ran a farming operation with help from his son, Tim, and his neighbor, Richard Devine. When John testified that he confided in Devine about his farming operations and other aspects of life, the district court asked if Devine would be aware of the events of the last few months and John replied, “I'm sure he has.” John testified that he went to Brown's office on June 3 “[t]o write up a new will. And I don't know what all—just—just get out of Dennis Keenan's office, you know, and get over to him.” When the court asked John if going to see Brown was something he wanted to do, John answered, “No.”

Devine testified that John had been his neighbor his whole life and he considered John a very dear friend who had discussed recent events many times. When asked whether he believed John intended to revoke his prior wills, Devine replied, “No, it's not his intent. I've known him my entire life. He's always been a man of his word. And he just—I think he's been manipulated into a lot of things that he would not normally do.” Devine explained that John went to Brown's office with Marie, signed a bunch of papers, and afterwards was not aware of what he had signed. These comments bothered Devine enough that he called Dennis the next day to ask what was going on. Dennis asked if John had ever said what he wanted to do with his property if something happened to him. According to Devine, John had always wanted the property he owned before marrying Marie to go to the children, but John had no problem with the land acquired since the marriage going to Marie.

The district court entered a temporary order removing Marie from the home on July 2, 2015. Stafford County law enforcement immediately served Marie with the order and removed her from the home. John became upset and called Dennis’ office to insist that Marie not be evicted. Devine testified that John was “in shock” and told Devine, “This isn't supposed to happen.” When Carroll explained that removal of a spouse from the home is typical in a divorce action, John responded, “Divorce? What divorce? I don't know anything about a divorce.” On July 6, 2015, John hired a new attorney, Don Reif, to move to dismiss the divorce petition. Reif moved to dismiss on the grounds that John “did not realize what he was signing in his former attorney's office and further, never intended to seek a Petition for Divorce from the Respondent.”

Devine testified about the July 2, 2015 divorce hearing at trial on the present estate case. He expressed regret for taking John to Dennis’ office because it resulted in the petition for divorce. Devine added, “[I]t was probably one of the biggest mistakes I ever made in my life, taking him up.” Devine claimed that he was confused by some of the questions asked during the temporary orders hearing on July 2, 2015. Notwithstanding his confusion, Devine reaffirmed his belief that John always wanted the property John had before marrying Marie to go to the children and the property acquired during the marriage to go to Marie.

The district court found John's revocation of the June 22 will to be the product of undue influence and therefore invalid. Further, the district court found that John could not unilaterally undo his and Marie's mutual revocation of the prenuptial agreement. Therefore, John's attempt to undo the revocation was likewise invalid.

Petition for guardian and conservator for John

Marie testified that problems with John's children reemerged in July 2015 after the quitclaim deed had been filed. Marie never thought Tiffany liked her because “she was pretty rude” to Marie at John and Marie's wedding. But Tiffany did not live in Kansas, so Marie did not have to deal with her on a regular basis. Marie never had conflict with Tracy, and she had known Todd a long time without conflict since she had worked with Todd at UPS.

Tim was a different story because Marie had a romantic relationship with Tim for a couple of months before Marie met John. Tim came to work on the farm in 2006. Conflict arose after John's cancer diagnosis because Marie was openly agitated that Tim would not work more hours to help his father. After Marie expressed her displeasure, Tim started engaging in behaviors that Marie found harassing, intimidating, or obnoxious. John complained to some friends that his children were mistreating Marie. Devine testified that the Keenan children treated Marie terribly, such as redoing the house to the way it was during John and Bernadine's marriage or putting up signs calling Marie insulting names, and these events were very hard on John. Despite the friction, Tim remained and worked on the farm until July 2015.

On July 15, 2015, Tim and Tiffany petitioned for the appointment of a guardian and conservator for John. The district court appointed Robert J. Schmisseur as John's guardian, and John remained a ward and conservatee until his death. John died in Great Bend in February 2020. At trial, Schmisseur testified that John and Marie genuinely cared for each other, that outside of Marie's presence John would say, “I've got a good wife,” and that Schmisseur believed that Marie's care for John “kept him out of a nursing home for a period of time.”

Ultimately, the district court found that the prenuptial agreement was mutually revoked and the June 22, 2025 will governed John's estate. The district court later entered a separate journal entry admitting the June 22, 2015 will to probate, appointing Marie as executor, and entering final judgment.

The Keenan children appeal.

Analysis

The Keenan children challenge the district court's determinations that the June 2015 prenuptial agreement revocation and will were executed in the absence of undue influence and therefore valid. They argue the determinations are predicated on the district court's arbitrary disregard of undisputed evidence, arbitrary disregard of its own findings, and bias toward Marie.

Undue influence

The Keenan children do not challenge the district court's determinations that John possessed the requisite testamentary capacity to execute the June 2015 will or that the will otherwise complied with statutory formalities. Further, they do not challenge the district court's determination that the prenuptial agreement revocation satisfied the statutory requirements for enforceability.

When, as here, a prima facie case exists for validity of a will, the burden shifts to the party contesting the will “to overcome the presumption of validity by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.” Cresto v. Cresto, 302 Kan. 820, 831, 358 P.3d 831 (2015). A contesting party can overcome the presumption of validity by demonstrating that the will is the product of undue influence. Undue influence is “ ‘such coercion, compulsion or constraint that the testator's free agency is destroyed, and by overcoming his power of resistance, the testator is obliged to adopt the will of another rather than exercise his own.’ ” 302 Kan. at 832.

“[A] person contesting a testamentary document without direct evidence that it was the product of undue influence can nevertheless establish a presumption of undue influence by showing that (1) ‘the person who is alleged to have exerted undue influence was in a confidential and fiduciary relationship with the [person executing the testamentary document]’; and (2) ‘there were “suspicious circumstances” surrounding the making of the [testamentary document].’ ” 302 Kan. at 834.

“[T]he burden [then] shifts back to the proponent of the testamentary document to rebut the presumption.” 302 Kan. at 834.

Likewise, an otherwise enforceable contract is invalid if it is the product of undue influence. Unlike challenges to testamentary instruments, however, a person contesting a contract need only show the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the contracting parties to create a presumption of undue influence. “ ‘[T]he burden [then] rests upon the person [in whom confidence has been placed] to show that the transaction was conducted in good faith and did not result from the exercise of undue influence.’ ” Moore v. Moore, 56 Kan. App. 2d 301, 305, 429 P.3d 607 (2018).

The Keenan children contend that the district court erred in finding no undue influence, and in failing to consider the existence of a confidential relationship between John and Marie relating to the 2015 prenuptial revocation or will. Marie contends that the district court was correct in determining that no confidential and fiduciary relationship existed between John and Marie regarding those documents. Further, both parties contend the district court found no suspicious circumstances surrounding the making and execution of the will.

However, the parties presume more about the district court's findings than the record reveals. In its discussion of either contested document, the district court did not explicitly set forth the presumption framework. Instead, regarding the prenuptial agreement revocation, the district court found that “there is little if any evidence this revocation was the product of undue influence by Marie,” and “[p]laintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proving undue influence as to this document.” And regarding the will, the district court found that the “circumstances surrounding the signing of this will on June 22, 2015, do not support a claim of undue influence,” and “[t]he kind of heavy handed and overwhelming coercion that equates to undue influence was not present on June 22, 2015.”

Neither party objected to inadequate findings of fact or conclusions of law, thereby giving the trial court an opportunity to correct them. In the absence of such objection, we do not consider them on appeal as we presume the trial court “found all facts necessary to support the judgment.” Hill v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 263 Kan. 703, 706, 952 P.2d 1286 (1998).

In In re Estate of Farr, 274 Kan. 51, 49 P.3d 415 (2002), opponents to a will alleged the district court erred in finding the will was not the product of undue influence. The opponents claimed a confidential relationship existed and that suspicious circumstances existed. The district court did not specifically apply the two-pronged test to establish a presumption of undue influence. See Cresto, 302 Kan. at 834. Instead, the district court cited only the ultimate standard for proving undue influence. Farr, 274 Kan. at 71. Given the similarity of our situation to that in Farr, we follow the path the Supreme Court took there and consider the Keenan children's arguments in the context of the district court's ultimate determination that there was no undue influence.

Standard of review

A district court's finding that a will “was not the product of undue influence is a negative finding [showing] that the party with the burden of proof failed to sustain that burden. [We] will not disturb a negative finding, ‘absent proof of an arbitrary disregard of undisputed evidence or some extrinsic circumstance such as bias, passion, or prejudice.’ [Citations omitted.]” 274 Kan. at 69-70. “ ‘An appellate court cannot nullify a trial judge's disbelief of evidence nor can it determine the persuasiveness of evidence which the trial judge may have believed.’ ” Cresto, 302 Kan. at 845.

The district court's findings

The district court made several findings relating to the circumstances surrounding the making and execution of the June 2015 prenuptial agreement revocation:

“Richard Brown testified he had no doubt that revocation of the 2005 prenuptial agreement was exactly what John wanted. Brown's notes from his private meeting with John that day reveal that John told him Marie had been faithful to him; she worked hard and helped on the farm; she cooked and cleaned; and she had taken good care of him, including his medical needs. John stated she had earned the right to have most of his stuff. John went on to say that the kids never do anything and only reach out to him if they want something. He then stated that the kids could have the property in the trust, but Marie should have the rest.

“John Keenan's revocation of the earlier prenuptial agreement fulfilled a commitment of sorts he made to his younger sister Mary Lynn Tesar who testified that she and John's other sister Lois Daniels would travel to see John on a regular basis. The three of them were close. Mary Lynn had told John he should never have asked Marie to sign a prenuptial agreement, and he responded that he would get it nullified.

“․ Even if Marie had encouraged John to revoke the prenuptial, she was not the only one making that suggestion. John's own sister told him the same thing, and he agreed with her. The attorney who drafted and witnessed the signing of these revocations was convinced it was the purposeful and voluntary act of John Keenan.”

The district court relied on these findings either to conclude that there was no confidential relationship between John and Marie, or that Marie adequately combatted any presumption of undue influence with evidence that the revocation was executed in good faith. Clearly, the district court gave substantial weight to Brown's testimony. The district court appears to have found Mary Lynn's testimony regarding her discussions with John to have strengthened the credibility of Brown's testimony. While the Keenan children accurately point to evidence that could be construed to call into question Brown's impartiality, the existence of that evidence alone is insufficient to prove that the district court arbitrarily disregarded it. Instead, we find that the district court considered all the relevant evidence and, upon weighing the evidence, appropriately concluded that the prenuptial agreement was not tainted by undue influence.

As to the June 2015 will, the district court found:

“This will was not foisted upon John Keenan that day. It was not a surprise. He had been talking with Richard Brown about a new will since September 2014. He had been in possession of this very will since June 3, 2015, with more than adequate time to review and consider it. And he chose to sign the will on the very day that he signed his answer to the State of Kansas’ garnishment directed at his son Tim and the LLC. Perhaps any hesitancy he had in signing the will was resolved by his displeasure over Tim's tax troubles.”

Further, in its analysis relating to its decision to invalidate various documents John signed on July 2, 2015, the district court made additional findings relating to the execution of the June 2015 will:

“John had been contemplating a new will since September 2014, and he had been in possession of the proposed will since June 3, 2015, when he took it home for review. John's wife Marie may have been encouraging him to sign these documents, but the evidence fails to demonstrate that her influence rose to the level of ‘such coercion, compulsion or restraint that the testator's free agency is destroyed.’ Cresto[, 302 Kan. at] 832. As the Kansas Supreme Court has noted, ‘The law does not and should not presume a spouse to be guilty of undue influence simply by reason of the marital relationship alone or because the spouse has been able throughout the marriage to have considerable influence on her spouse.’ John Keenan still had control over his financial decisions during these events. He was not simply ‘the tutored instrument of a dominating mind which dictates to him what he shall do.’ Cresto[, 302 Kan. at] 832. Citations omitted.”

We cannot discern from these findings whether the district court determined there were no triggering confidential relationships or suspicious circumstances or whether the evidence adequately overcame any presumption that arose. In either circumstance, however, we are able to discern an evidentiary basis to support the district court's ultimate determination that no undue influence existed. Specifically, the district court found it significant that John had substantial time to review and contemplate the will before he executed it and that he had Brown's counsel. Further, the district court found Tim's tax troubles to be an adequate explanation for John's change of mind regarding his estate plan.

The Keenan children cite several facts in the record they claim support their position that both documents are the product of undue influence. They then argue that the district court could not have possibly concluded that no undue influence existed but for an arbitrary disregard of this evidence or bias toward Marie. However, the record shows that the district court carefully weighed the various factors at play relating to all issues before it, including which attorney prepared which document, John's progression of dementia, and John's background considerations, e.g., the children's animosity with Marie and Tim's tax difficulties. Further, the record contains no actual evidence of an outside relationship or extrinsic incentive that would serve as a feasible basis for bias toward Marie. Rather than arbitrarily disregarding undisputed evidence or ruling based upon bias, the district court appropriately weighed evidence and made credibility determinations. Accordingly, we find no error.

Affirmed.

Stein, J.: