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

4. The testator actually did change his or her post-death distribution plan as a result of the
influencer’s actions; and
5. The change was unconscionable.
Proponents of wills can defend them by presenting rebuttal evidence, which disproves any of the
five elements.
Blinder (2003) identified the following elements that have proven to be the most
persuasive to the judiciary in demonstrating undue influence in cases involving wills:
• The provisions of the will are “unnatural” (different from what might be expected);
• The dispositions in the will appear to be at war with the wishes of the decedent, expressed
both before and after the execution of the will;
• The physical and mental condition of the decedent was such to permit a subversion of the
decedent's free will; and
• The primary beneficiaries under the will were active in procuring the execution of the will.
Ross & Reed (1999) identified five types of relationships that courts consider subject to
undue influence when someone executes a change of a post-death plan by the victim in favor of
the influencer:
1. A “David and Bathsheba” relationship, in which a second spouse obtains the
disinheritance of children of an earlier marriage;
2. An “Esau and Jacob” relationship, in which a child attempts to obtain the disinheritance
of one or more children.
3. A “Judge Jeffrey Pycheon” relationship, which resembles # 2, but a brother, sister, niece,
nephew, or cousin obtains the lion’s share of the estate at the expense of other kin;
4. A “Uriah Heep” relationship, in which a helping professional obtains all or part of the
victim’s estate instead of the victim’s heirs; and
5. A “Mary Worth” relationship, in which a neighbor or acquaintance obtains the victim’s
estate at the expense of the victim’s heirs.
103