In Habersack v. Rabaut, 93 Mich App 300, 305; 287 NW2d 213 (1979), the Court found that the presumption of undue influence was rebutted by evidence that the deceased had intended to disinherit her son, that the deceased was mentally alert when she opened the joint account, that the defendant had provided friendship and professional advice to the deceased, and that the defendant neither sought nor was paid for his professional services. The Court stated that the statutory presumption may be countered by another presumption which arose out of the instant factual situation. Where parties are involved in a confidential or fiduciary relationship and trust and confidence is reposed by one in the integrity and fidelity of another, and where the latter receives benefits as a result of such relationship, there arises a presumption that such benefits were procured by the exercise of undue influence. . . . Due to this latter presumption, the burden devolved upon the defendant to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that undue influence was not operative. . . . In satisfying this burden, the defendant is benefited by a permissible inference that the joint bank account was intended to pass to the survivor. This permissible inference remains as a vestige of the rebutted statutory presumption.