Decedents' Estates Flashcards
(5 cards)
Summary
Testator’s will is invalid, in whole or in part, if it was the product of undue influence. Here, the facts are not conclusive, but may support an undue influence finding. If the will is valid, the estate will pass in equal shares to Harriet and Doris.
If the bequest to Harriet was the product of undue influence, the court may invalidate the entire will or only Harriet’s bequest. If the entire will is invalidated, the estate would pass under the laws of intestate succession: Doris, Sam, and Fred, who would take as the representative of his deceased parent, Bob, would take equal 1/3 shares.
If only the bequest to Harriet is invalidated, one-half of the estate would pass to Doris under the will and the remaining half would pass either to Doris as the remaining residuary legatee or, if the common law “no residue of a residue” rule is applied, to Doris, Sam, and Fred under the laws of intestate succession. In that case, Doris would take 2/3 of the estate, and Sam and Fred would each take 1/6.
The court may find that Testator’s will, in whole or in part, was the product of Harriet’s undue influence.
If a will or portion of a will is the product of undue influence, it may be set aside. Undue influence occurs when the “wrongdoer exerted such influence over the [testator] that it overcame the [testator’s] free will and caused the [testator] to make a donative transfer that the [testator] would not otherwise have made. ”RESTATEMENT (THIRD)OFPROPERTY (WILLSAND OTHER DONATIVE TRANSFERS)§ 8.3(b) (2003). The burden of establishing undue influence is on the will contestant, who must show that: (1) the testator was susceptible to undue influence, (2) the alleged wrongdoer had the opportunity to exert undue influence upon the testator, (3) the alleged wrongdoer had a disposition to exert undue influence, and (4) the will appears to be the product of undue influence. Id. at cmt. e. Undue influence may be established by circumstantial evidence. See generally Estate of Kamesar, 259 N.W.2d 733, 737–38 (Wis. 1977).
The facts of this case, if proven at trial, would certainly establish that Harriet had opportunity and a disposition to influence Testator. Harriet lived in Testator’s home, criticized and limited his contacts with Doris, a natural object of Testator’s bounty, and urged him repeatedly to make a will in her favor. The will contestant should also be able toshow that the bequest to Harriet was linked to her attempts to influence the will, as Testator executed the will only after Harriet threatened to quit and at a time when he had become increasingly dependent upon her; Testator also bequeathed to Harriet, an employee who was not the natural object of his bounty, one-half of his probate estate.
The facts do not so clearly establish Testator’s susceptibility to undue influence. On the one hand, Testator was increasingly ill and dependent on Harriet. He also agreed to see an attorney after Harriet threatened him. On the other hand, Testator maintained control over his financial affairs until his death, continued to play an active role as trustee of various nonprofits, refused to see the attorney Harriet suggested, and communicated his dispositional plan to his own attorney through handwritten instructions.
Because the evidence is inconclusive, the outcome might depend on who bears the burden of proof. Normally, this rests on the party challenging the will. However, in many jurisdictions, a presumption of undue influence arises when there isa confidential relationship between the testator and the alleged influencer and suspicious circumstances surround the drafting of the will. Most of the cases involving confidential relationships involve attorneys and close relatives; it is not clear that a confidential relationship between Testator and Harriet could be established in this case. But if it were, then the burden of proof on the issue of undue influence would shift to Harriet.
If the court finds that the bequest to Harriet was the product of undue influence, it may invalidate the entire will or only the bequest to Harriet.
A finding of undue influence may lead a court to invalidate the entire will or only a portion of it. Most courts will invalidate only those portions that are “infected” by undue influence. See Williams v. Crickman, 405 N.E.2d 799 (Ill. 1980). Clearly, if there was undue influence, it affected the bequest to Harriet and thatbequest should be invalidated.
It is less clear whether the entire will was infected by Harriet’s undue influence. Given his estrangement from Sam, it is possible that Testator would have left his entire estate to Doris had he not left a one-half share to Harriet. However, it is also possible that Testator might have left a share of the estate to his grandchild, Fred; the facts do not show that Testator was estranged from either Fred or Fred’s deceased parent, Bob. Testator might also have left a share to Sam’s child, Ella, or even to Sam himself. Indeed, Testator might not have executed a will at all. Given this uncertainty, the court might invalidate the entire will or only the bequest to Harriet.
If the entire will is invalidated, Testator’s estate would pass to his heirs, Doris, Sam, and Fred.
Assuming that the court invalidates the entire will as the product of undue influence, Testator’s estate will be distributed to his heirs. In every jurisdiction, Testator’s heirs would be his two surviving children, Doris and Sam, and his grandchild, Fred, who takes as the representative of Testator’s deceased child, Bob. Doris’s child, Ella, would not take as an heir because Doris survived Testator and there is no basis for Ella to represent her mother. See UNIF. PROB. CODE §§ 2-101, 2-106.
If the bequest to Harriet alone is invalidated, Harriet’s one-half share of the estate would either pass to Doris in its entirety or be distributed equally to Doris, Sam, and Fred, depending on whether the jurisdiction applies the common law “no residue of a residue” rule.
When a residuary bequest fails, the question arises as to whether the invalidated share passes to the testator’s heirs or to the remaining residuary legatee(s). Under the common law “no residue of a residue” rule, the invalid share passes to the testator’s heirs. See WILLIAM M.MCGOVERN & SHELDON F.KURTZ,WILLS,TRUSTSAND ESTATES 335 n. 73 (3d ed. 2004). The theory behind this approach is that, if the invalid share were to pass to the remaining residuary legatee, it would increase her share without an executed bequest and thus violate the policies that underlie typical statutory execution requirements. Under the common law approach, Doris would take one-half of the estate under the will, and the remaining half would be distributed in equal shares to Doris, Sam, and Fred under the law of intestate succession. (See Point Three(a) above.)
Many courts today reject the common law rule, theorizing that the testator’s execution of a will evidences an intention to benefit the legatees named in the will to the exclusion of heirs, particularly would-be heirs not mentioned in the will. This “residue of a residue” approach has been adopted in Uniform Probate Code § 2-604. Under this approach, Harriet’s invalid share would go to Doris, the only other residuary legatee. Neither Sam nor Fred would take a share of Testator’s estate.
