Did these individuals exert an influence over Marjorie that overrode her own free will and decision-making, resulting in decisions that reflected their desires rather than Thomas and Marjorie’s own intentions.
To determine whether Janette, Charmelle, and Kelley substituted their own will for that of Marjorie, it would be necessary to examine the specific circumstances and actions surrounding Marjorie’s decision-making, particularly in relation to a legal matter like a will, trust, or financial decision.
In legal terms, substituting one’s will for that of another typically involves exerting undue influence.
This means applying pressure or manipulation in such a way that it overpowers the individual’s (in this case, Marjorie’s) free will and decision-making capacity, leading them to make decisions that reflect the desires or interests of the influencers (Janette, Charmelle, and Kelley) rather than their own.
Key factors to consider include:
- The Nature of the Relationship: The relationship between Marjorie and the other parties (Janette, Charmelle, and Kelley) would be scrutinized. If they were in positions of trust or authority, it might be easier for them to exert undue influence.
- Marjorie’s Vulnerability: Marjorie’s physical, emotional, and mental state would be relevant. If she was vulnerable due to age, illness, or cognitive impairment, it might be argued that she was more susceptible to influence.
- Evidence of Pressure or Coercion: Any evidence that Janette, Charmelle, and Kelley pressured Marjorie, either overtly or subtly, to make decisions against her will would be crucial.
- Changes in Decisions: Sudden or unexplained changes in Marjorie’s decisions or plans, especially if they favor Janette, Charmelle, and Kelley disproportionately, could indicate undue influence.
- Marjorie’s Past Behavior and Statements: Her past behavior, decisions, and stated intentions can provide context. If her recent decisions under the influence of Janette, Charmelle, and Kelley are radically different from her past independent decisions, this might suggest undue influence.
- Legal Documentation and Witnesses: Any legal documents, correspondence, or witness testimonies that shed light on the dynamics between Marjorie and the other parties, and on Marjorie’s decision-making process, would be relevant.
In a legal proceeding, these and other factors would be analyzed to determine if undue influence occurred.
It’s important to note that proving undue influence can be complex and typically requires a thorough examination of all relevant evidence.
Legal counsel would be essential in such a situation to navigate the specifics of the case and the applicable law.
What Is Undue Influence?
In Idaho, undue influence is recognized where sufficient evidence has been presented that indicates a testator’s (testatrix’s) free agency has been overcome by that of another. In re Eggan’s Estate, 386 P. 2d 563 – Idaho: Supreme Court 1963
American Bar Association (ABA) explain undue influence occurs when a fiduciary or confidential relationship exists in which one person substitutes his own will for that of the influenced person’s will.
In 2010, the California Administrative Offices of the Courts (AOC) electronically published the results of that research study see: www.courts.ca.gov/documents/UndueInfluence.pdf).
California Civil Code § 1575 which had been enacted in 1872. The elements of that definition which are still in effect for contract law are:
- The use, by one in whom a confidence is reposed by another, or who holds real or apparent authority over him, of such confidence or authority for the purpose of obtaining an unfair advantage over him;
- In taking an unfair advantage of another’s weakness of mind; and
- In taking a grossly oppressive and unfair advantage of another’ necessities or distress.
“Undue influence” means excessive persuasion that causes another person to act or refrain from acting by overcoming that person’s free will and results in inequity.
In determining whether a result was produced by undue influence, all of the following shall be considered (with equal weight).
Each of the four are considered to have equal weight.
- Vulnerability of the victim. Evidence of vulnerability may include, but is not limited to, incapacity, illness disability, injury, age, education, impaired cognitive function, emotional distress, isolation, or dependency where the influencer knew of, or should have known of, the alleged victim’s vulnerability.
- The influencer’s apparent authority. Evidence of apparently authority may include but is not limited to, status as a fiduciary, family member, care provider, health care processional, legal professional, spiritual adviser, expert, or other qualification
- The actions or tactics used by the influencer. Evidence of actions or tactics used may include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
- Controlling necessaries of life, medication, the victim’s interactions with others, access to information or sleep.
- Use of affection, intimidation, or coercion.
- Initiation of changes in person or property rights, use of haste or secrecy in effecting those changes, effecting changes at inappropriate time and places, and claims of expertise in effecting change.
- The equity of the result. Evidence of the equity of the result may include, but is not limited to, the economic consequences to the victim, any divergence from the victim’s prior intent or course of conduct or dealing, the relationship of the value conveyed to the value of any services or consideration received, or the appropriateness of the change in light of the length and nature of the relationship. Evidence of an inequitable result, without more, is not sufficient to prove undue influence.
All four are not required to determine if undue influence has occurred.
In fact, a judge or jury could decide that undue influence has taken place where the four factors are not present.
Gmeiner also sets forth in her brief an applicable quotation from 38 C.J.S. Gifts § 67 at 887:
The health, age, and mental condition of the donor may afford evidence of the exercise of undue influence, and be sufficient to establish it when considered in the light of other circumstances. If, at the time of the gift, the donor’s mind was enfeebled by age and disease, even though not to the extent of producing mental unsoundness, and the donor acted without independent and disinterested advice, and gift was of a large portion or all of the donor’s estate, and operated substantially to deprive those having a natural claim to the donor’s bounty of all benefit from the donor’s estate, these circumstances, if proved and unexplained, will authorize a finding that the gift is void, through undue influence, without proof of specific acts and conduct of the donee.
In the other major text, It is stated generally that there are four elements of undue influence: (1) a person who is subject to influence; (2) an opportunity to exert undue influence; (3) a disposition to exert undue influence; and (4) a result indicating undue influence. Among the factors taken into consideration in determining the existence of undue influence are the age and physical and mental condition of the one alleged to have been influenced, whether he had independent or disinterested advice in the transaction, the providence or improvidence of the gift or transaction, delay in making it known, consideration or lack or inadequacy thereof for any contract made, necessities and distress of the person alleged to have been influenced, his predisposition to make the transfer in question, the extent of the transfer in relation to his whole worth, failure to provide for his own family in the case of a transfer to a stranger, or failure to provide for all of his children in case of a transfer to one of them, active solicitations and persuasions by the other party, and the relationship of the parties.
25 Am.Jur.2d Duress and Undue Influence § 36 at 397 (1966).
A Result Which Appears to be the Effect of the Exercise of Undue Influence.
The suspiciousness of a particular result sets the tempo throughout. A result is suspicious if it appears “unnatural, unjust or irrational.” In re Lunders’ Estate, 74 Idaho 448, 451 362 P.2d 1002 (1953). A property disposition which departs from the natural and expected is said to raise a “red flag of warning,” In re Culver’s Estate, 22 Wis.2d 665, 126 N.W.2d 536, 540 (1964), and to cause the court to scrutinize the entire transaction closely.
On the other hand, apparently unnatural dispositions may be sufficiently explained. Indeed, the law must respect even an “unequal and unjust disposition” once it is determined that such was the intent of the grantor or testator. Englesby v. Nisula, 99 Idaho 21, 576 P.2d 1055 (1978). Thus, for example, the grantee may be particularly deserving by reason of long years of care and the fact “that the grantor was motivated by affection or even gratitude does not establish undue influence.” Mollendorf v. Derry, 95 Idaho 1, 3, 501 P.2d 199, 201 (1972).
Undue Influence Case
A daughter was living with her father who was in his 80s and in poor health. She convinced him to give her $8,000 per month because “I’m taking care of you.” She would not allow the other children to visit saying their father was too ill and weak to receive visitors. She also told her father, “Well the other kids won’t help. They never visit. I’m the only one who cares about you. You’d end up in a nursing home if I wasn’t here.”
After the father died, it was learned that the daughter had induced her father to make a will leaving the family home to her as well as all his stocks and bank accounts. A will contest took place. A jury found that undue influence had taken place, but that the father would have wanted to leave something to his daughter. Eventually, it was determined that the assets should be split between the four children.
What Are The Challenges Of Proving Undue Influence?
The ABA explain, undue influence usually takes place behind closed doors and there are no witnesses.
And, adults are legally able to make decisions about their affairs unless a court has appointed a guardian or conservator.
Does Undue Influence Require A Relationship Of Trust?
The essential characteristics of a trust relationship are separation of the legal title from the beneficial interest and the existence of fiduciary duties. In re Eggan’s Estate, 386 P. 2d 563 – Idaho: Supreme Court 1963
Are Denise And Joseph Designated The Class Of Beneficiaries Under Tom & Marge’s Free Agency Before Janette, Charmelle, And Possibly Kelley Unduly Influenced Marge?
The purpose of the requirement for a definite designation of the class of the beneficiaries is to allow the courts to be certain that the testatrix’s intendments and purposes are being carried out. In re Eggan’s Estate, 386 P. 2d 563 – Idaho: Supreme Court 1963
To determine if Denise and Joseph were designated as the class of beneficiaries under Tom and Marge’s free agency before any alleged undue influence by Janette, Charmelle, and possibly Kelley, it is necessary to examine the original estate planning documents, such as wills or trusts, created by Tom and Marge.
These documents, if created and executed without undue influence, reflect Tom and Marge’s true intentions and free agency regarding their beneficiaries.
- Original Estate Planning Documents: The initial wills or trusts established by Tom and Marge should outline their original intent regarding beneficiaries. If Denise and Joseph are named in these documents as beneficiaries, it suggests that they were the intended recipients of Tom and Marge’s assets before any alleged undue influence.
- Changes to Estate Planning Documents: If there were subsequent changes to these documents that altered the beneficiary designations in favor of Janette, Charmelle, and Kelley, it would be necessary to assess the circumstances under which these changes were made. This includes understanding whether Marge (and possibly Tom) was under undue influence at the time of making these changes.
- Evidence of Free Agency and Capacity: Assessing whether Tom and Marge had the mental capacity and free agency to make decisions about their estate is crucial. Evidence such as medical records, witness testimonies, and legal counsel opinions can provide insight into their ability to make informed decisions without coercion or manipulation.
- Legal Proceedings and Investigations: If there are disputes or allegations of undue influence, these matters are typically resolved through legal proceedings where all relevant evidence is presented and examined.
- Legal Advice and Counsel: In situations of potential undue influence, it is often advisable to seek legal advice. An attorney specializing in estate law can provide guidance on how to approach the situation, including the potential need for legal action to contest changes to estate documents.
To accurately determine the status of Denise and Joseph as beneficiaries and whether there was undue influence, a thorough review of all estate documents and related evidence would be necessary, potentially involving legal proceedings.
What Facts Give Rise To A Presumption Of Undue Influence?
In Idaho, a presumption of undue influence arises in specific scenarios, particularly in the context of wills and estate planning.
Key factors that may give rise to this presumption include:
- A confidential relationship between the influencer and the testator.
- The influencer actively participating in the preparation or execution of the will.
- The influencer receiving an unusually large or unexpected benefit under the will.
These factors suggest that the influencer might have exerted undue influence over the testator in the creation of the will, leading to a distribution of assets that does not reflect the testator’s true intent.
If such a presumption is established, the burden of proof shifts to the party favored by the will to show that there was no undue influence.
If A Presumption Of Undue Influence Is Established, What Does That Mean For Janette, Charmelle, & Kelley?
If a presumption of undue influence is established in a legal context involving Janette, Charmelle, & Kelley, it means that there is an initial assumption that one or more of them exerted improper influence over someone in a significant decision, typically involving a will or trust.
This presumption shifts the burden of proof onto them to demonstrate that there was no undue influence.
Their ability to rebut this presumption will significantly impact the legal outcome, especially in matters related to the distribution of an estate or the validity of a will or trust document.
the Court has made it clear that no presumption of undue influence will arise simply because the grantor is old, physically infirm or uneducated. Gmeiner v. Yacte, 592 P. 2d 57 – Idaho: Supreme Court 1979
Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally
In a civil case, unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption.
But this rule does not shift the burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who had it originally.
A Rule 301 presumption relieves the party in whose favor the presumption operates from having to adduce further evidence of the presumed fact until the opponent introduces substantial evidence of the nonexistence of the fact. Bongiovi v. Jamison, 718 P. 2d 1172 – Idaho: Supreme Court 1986
—then when a defendant introduces substantial evidence of a decedent’s negligence, the presumption would dissipate. Bongiovi v. Jamison, 718 P. 2d 1172 – Idaho: Supreme Court 1986
However, if the person alleging undue influence can first produce evidence that the parties to the transaction occupied a confidential relationship, and that the grantee was the dominant spirit in the transfer, a rebuttable presumption of undue influence arises, which the proponent ofthe transaction must refute. Bongiovi v. Jamison, 718 P. 2d 1172 – Idaho: Supreme Court 1986
When the bubble bursts, “the presumption disappears and the party with the benefit of the presumption retains the burden of persuasion on the issue.” Bongiovi v. Jamison, 718 P. 2d 1172 – Idaho: Supreme Court 1986
What Evidence Will Janette, Charmelle, & Kelley Allege To Justify Their Influence Of Marjorie To Ultimitely Disinherit Denise?
The fact that the grantor’s natural heirs received sizable bequests will make it difficult for them to challenge grants to another. And the fact that the grantor was known to be displeased with those who were disinherited will serve to explain why they were cut off, whereas a sudden shift in the object of the grantor’s choice coincidental with the creation of a confidential relation with the new beneficiary will merit strict court scrutiny. See McNabb v. Brewster, 75 Idaho 313, 272 P.2d 298 (1954); In re Lunders’ Estate, 74 Idaho 448, 263 P.2d 1002 (1953); In re Estate of Randall, 60 Idaho 419, 93 P.2d 1 (1939).
This statement suggests that in cases of alleged undue influence in estate matters, the court will closely examine the circumstances surrounding the creation of a will or trust. If the grantor (person creating the will or trust) had a known negative disposition towards those who were ultimately disinherited, this fact could justify their exclusion.
However, if there is a sudden change in the grantor’s preferences that aligns with the establishment of a confidential relationship with a new beneficiary (especially if this beneficiary gains significantly from the change), the court will scrutinize this situation more rigorously to determine if undue influence was involved.
What Could Cause Undue Influence?
Recent death of a family member.
- Grantor’s [Marge] recent loss of a family member, led Marge to disinherint Denise under the influence of Janette, Charmelle and possibly Kelley.
In particular, the court will manifest concern for a grantor who has been proven incapable of handling his or her own business affairs, who is illiterate, or who has undergone marked deterioration of mind and body shortly before the grant, or who has suffered the trauma of recent death in the family. Gmeiner v. Yacte, 592 P. 2d 57 – Idaho: Supreme Court 1979
Did Charmelle, Janette, And Kelley Have The Opportunity To Exert Undue Influence Over Marjorie?
Determining whether Charmelle, Janette, and Kelley had the opportunity to exert undue influence over Marjorie requires examining their interactions, relationship dynamics, and the specific circumstances surrounding Marjorie’s decision-making processes.
General factors that typically create opportunities for undue influence include:
- Close Relationship: If Charmelle, Janette, and Kelley had a close personal relationship with Marjorie, especially if they were family members, caregivers, or had a significant role in her life, this could provide them with the opportunity to exert influence.
- Access and Control: Regular and significant access to Marjorie, particularly if she was dependent on them for care, financial management, or emotional support, could create opportunities for exerting influence.
- Isolation of the Influenced Party: If they were in a position to isolate Marjorie from other family members, friends, or advisors, this could increase their ability to influence her decisions.
- Involvement in Financial or Legal Matters: Active involvement in Marjorie’s financial or legal affairs, such as managing her finances, being involved in estate planning, or acting as her legal representative, could provide the means to exert undue influence.
- Marjorie’s Vulnerability: Factors such as Marjorie’s age, health condition, cognitive abilities, and emotional state play a significant role. If she was vulnerable due to any of these factors, it would have been easier for undue influence to occur.
- Evidence of Coercion or Manipulation: Any evidence, including communications or witness testimonies, suggesting that Charmelle, Janette, and Kelley were coercing, threatening, or manipulating Marjorie would be pertinent.
- Changes in Behavior or Decisions: Sudden changes in Marjorie’s behavior, decisions, or estate planning that favor Charmelle, Janette, and Kelley, especially if these changes are inconsistent with her previous intentions, could indicate the opportunity for undue influence.
To conclusively determine if undue influence occurred, these factors would typically be explored in a legal setting, often involving an investigation or a court proceeding.
It is important to gather comprehensive evidence and possibly seek legal counsel to accurately assess the situation.
