Undue Influence: Definitions and Applications - California Courts ...

to the accused to show that there was no wrongdoing. The presumption of undue influence, in
one form or another, exists in all states (Meyers, 2005).
The presumption of undue influence typically arises when confidential relationships exist
between the parties and the weaker or dependent persons make substantial gifts to or execute
contracts with the dominant parties. For example, when lawyers and other fiduciaries profit or
gain from contracts with their clients, the contracts are “presumptively invalid.”
Several states have acknowledged that certain circumstances are especially indicative of
undue influence and refer to them as “badges” of undue influence. They include:
• The person executing the will (the testator) is physically weak and or mentally impaired;
• The will is “unnatural” in its provisions;
• The relationship between the testator and beneficiary has developed recently and is of
comparatively short duration;
• The beneficiary actively participated in the preparation of the will;
• The beneficiary has the will in his or her possession;
• The beneficiary has made efforts to restrict the person’s contacts with the “natural objects of
his or her bounty”; and
• The beneficiary has absolute control of the testator’s business affairs.
A presumption of undue influence can be rebutted or dissolved by contrary evidence that
shows that transactions were in fact the result of free deliberation and that the person entering
into the contract had full capacity, knowledge of all the facts of the contract, time to reflect on
the contract, and the opportunity to consult with outside fiduciaries or experts. To trigger the
presumption of undue influence in cases alleging undue influence in will cases, persons
contesting transfers must show that:
1. The person executing the will (the testator) was susceptible to the influence of others;
2. The testator and alleged influencer had some type of confidential relationship;
3. The alleged influencer used the confidential relationship in order to secure a change in the
testator’s post-death distribution of property;
102