Influence of another that destroys the requisite free will of a Testator or Donor and creates a ground for nullifying a Will or invalidating an improvident Gift. The exercise of undue influence is suggested by excessive insistence, superiority of will or mind, the relationship of the parties or pressure on the donor or testator by any other means to do what he is unable, practically, to refuse.
Virtually any act of persuasion that overcomes the free will and judgment of another, including exhortations, importunings, insinuations, flattery, trickery, and deception, may amount to undue influence. Undue influence differs from duress, which consists of the intentional use of force, or threat of force, to coerce another into a grossly unfair transaction. Blackmail, extortion, bad faith threats of criminal prosecution, and oppressive abuse of process are classic examples of duress.
Four elements must be shown to establish undue influence. First, it must be demonstrated that the victim was susceptible to overreaching. Such conditions as mental, psychological, or physical disability or dependency may be used to show susceptibility. Second, there must be an opportunity for exercising undue influence. Typically, this opportunity arises through a confidential relationship. Courts have found opportunity for undue influence in confidential relationships between husband and wife, fiancé and fiancée, parent and child, trustee and beneficiary, administrator and legatee, guardian and ward, attorney and client, doctor and patient, and pastor and parishioner. Third, there must be evidence that the defendant was inclined to exercise undue influence over the victim. Defendants who aggressively initiate a transaction, insulate a relationship from outside supervision, or discourage a weaker party from seeking independent advice may be attempting to exercise undue influence. Fourth, the record must reveal an unnatural or suspicious transaction. Courts are wary, for example, of testators who make abrupt changes in their last will and testament after being diagnosed with a terminal illness or being declared incompetent, especially if the changes are made at the behest of a beneficiary who stands to benefit from the new or revised testamentary disposition.
Nevertheless, courts will examine the facts closely before finding that a transaction has been tainted by undue influence. Mere suspicion, surmise, or conjecture of overreaching is insufficient. The law permits loved ones and confidants to advise and comfort those in need of their support without fear of litigation. Courts are also aware that the doctrine of undue influence can be used as a sword by the vindictive and avaricious who seek to invalidate a perfectly legal transaction for personal gain. When undue influence is found to have altered a transaction, however, courts will make every effort to return the parties to the same position they would have occupied had the overreaching not occurred.
[top]Undue influence in contract law
If undue influence is proved in a contract (at least in Australia), the contract is voidable by the innocent party, and the remedy is rescission. There are two categories to consider:
- Presumed undue influence
- Actual undue influence
[top]Presumed undue influence
First subgroup
In the first subgroup, the relationship falls in a class of relationships that as a matter of law will raise a presumption of undue influence. Such classes include:
- Parent/child
- Guardian/ward
- Priest/member of parish
- Solicitor/client
- Doctor/patient
In such cases, the onus of proof lies on a doctor, say, to disprove undue influence on a patient.
Second subgroup
The second subgroup covers relationships that do not fall into the first subgroup, but on the facts of case, there was an antecedent relationship between the parties that led to undue influence. The test is one of whether there was a relationship of such trust and confidence that it should give rise to such a presumption (see Johnson v. Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113).
In Garcia v National Australia Bank (1998) 194 CLR 395, the High Court of Australia distinguished between cases of actual undue influence and situations where the transaction is set aside because the guarantor does not understand the nature of the transaction. Although there is no presumption of undue influence, a "lender is to be taken to have understood that, as a wife, the surety may repose trust and confidence in her husband in matters of business and therefore to have understood that the husband may not fully and accurately explain the purport and effect of the transaction to his wife; and yet... did not itself take steps to explain the transaction to the wife or find out that a stranger had explained it to her."
[top]Actual undue influence
An innocent party may also seek to have a contract set aside for actual undue influence, where there is no presumption of undue influence, but there is evidence that the power was unbalanced at the time of the signing of the contract.
[top]Undue influence in probate law
"Undue Influence" is the most common ground for will contests and are often accompanied by a capacity challenge. In probate law, it is generally defined as a testator's loss of free agency regarding property disposition through contemporaneous psychological domination by an advisor which results in an excessive benefit to the advisor. It is important to note that "undue influence" is only an issue when the advisor is benefiting, not when advisor is getting a benefit for someone else; in that case it would be considered fraud. In litigation most jurisdictions place the burden of proving undue influence on the party challenging the will.
How to Update Wiki
The Law Wiki is still very new and so it's a great time to jump in and start updating it and learning how to use it. You really can't mess anything up, because all revisions are stored and can be rolled back by a moderator, so play away and you can help make this a great resource for WORLDLawDirect visitors.
Similar Threads
Undue Influence
Linear Mode
