In a split decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the probate court's order granting summary disposition in favor of appellants. Relying on this Court's decision in In re Powers' Estate , 375 Mich. 150, 134 N.W.2d 148 (1965), the majority held that it was "required to remand for further proceedings, in which [Papazian] will be required to overcome the presumption of undue influence arising from the attorney-client relationship in order for the devises left to him and his family to be enforced." In re Mardigian Estate , 312 Mich. App. 553, 559, 879 N.W.2d 313 (2015).

A. BINDING SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT In In re Powers' Estate, 375 Mich. 150, 157, 176, 179, 134 N.W.2d 148 (1965), our Supreme Court held that a will devising the bulk of the estate to a member of the family of the attorney who drafted the will, and also naming the attorney as an additional beneficiary, was not necessarily invalid. Rather, in such circumstances, a question of undue influence exists, such that undue influence arising from the relationship is presumed to have been exerted as the means to secure the testamentary gift.

A. BINDING SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT In In re Powers' Estate, 375 Mich. 150, 157, 176, 179, 134 N.W.2d 148 (1965), our Supreme Court held that a will devising the bulk of the estate to a member of the family of the attorney who drafted the will, and also naming the attorney as an additional beneficiary, was not necessarily invalid. Rather, in such circumstances, a question of undue influence exists, such that undue influence arising from the relationship is presumed to have been exerted as the means to secure the testamentary gift.

Capacity is measured "as of the time of the execution of the instrument." In re Powers Estate, 375 Mich 150, 158; 134 NW2d 148 (1963). And we must presume that a testator was competent and capable to execute a will.

A properly qualified expert may express an opinion which is otherwise admissible but embraces the ultimate issue of fact. In re Powers Estate, 375 Mich. 150; 134 N.W.2d 148 (1965), Dudek v Popp, 373 Mich. 300; 129 N.W.2d 393 (1964), Cook v Kendrick, 16 Mich. App. 48; 167 N.W.2d 483 (1969), LaFave v Kroger Co, 5 Mich. App. 446; 146 N.W.2d 850 (1966), GCR 1963, 605. We find no error in the trial court's admission of the criticized opinion testimony.

In re Powers' Estate, 375 Mich. 150, 158; 134 N.W.2d 148 (1965). A challenger to the validity of the instrument has the burden of showing lack of testamentary capacity.

It is presumed that a testator has such capacity. In re Powers Estate, 375 Mich 150, 158; 134 NW2d 148 (1965). Testamentary capacity is judged at the time the will is executed, unless the testator's condition prior or subsequent to the execution is related to the time of execution.

"What the opinion of an expert does not yet extend to is the creation of new legal definitions and standards, and legal conclusions." In re Powers Estate, 375 Mich. 150, 172; 134 N.W.2d 148 (1965); Brown v Unit Products Corp, 105 Mich. App. 141, 152; 306 N.W.2d 425 (1981). The project engineer's statement to which defendant Bliss apparently objects was in response to the question,

There is no need to add any background material to our bare holding herein. All of the relevant facts and circumstances may be found in In re Powers Estate, 375 Mich. 150. The question here is simply the allowance or disallowance of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Testamentary capacity is presumed. In re Powers Estate, 375 Mich. 150, 158; 134 N.W.2d 148 (1965). Whether a person has testamentary capacity "is judged as of the time of the execution of the instrument."