How To Prove A California Undue Influence Defense

 

How To Prove A California Undue Influence Defense

 

In California, a defense of Undue Influence is defined as:

Undue influence occurs when a caregiver or someone who has a fiduciary or confidential relationship with a weaker, ailing, or elderly person substitutes his own will for that of the weaker person. Undue Influence can be an affirmative defense to a breach of contract claim in some circumstances.

It simply means:

When someone else persuades a weaker party to sign a contract.

There are 3 elements of the defense:

  • Element 1. The person alleged to have exerted undue influence had a confidential relationship with the testator. The person accused of unfairly influencing the will had a close, trusting relationship with the person who made the will, which raises concerns about whether the will truly reflects the testator’s wishes or was manipulated by the other party.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The alleged influencer was the testator’s primary caregiver for several years, managing their daily activities and health care decisions.
    * The testator relied on the alleged influencer for financial advice and assistance, often deferring to their judgment in financial matters.
    * The alleged influencer had access to the testator’s personal documents and financial records, demonstrating a level of trust and dependency.
    * The testator frequently expressed emotional reliance on the alleged influencer, stating they were the only person they could trust.
    * The relationship between the testator and the alleged influencer was characterized by a significant power imbalance, with the influencer making key decisions on behalf of the testator.

  • Element 2. The person alleged to have exerted undue influence actively participated in procuring, preparation and or execution of a testamentary instrument. This means that the person accused of unfairly influencing someone was directly involved in creating or signing a will, which raises questions about whether the will truly reflects the wishes of the person who made it.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The alleged influencer was present during the drafting of the will and provided specific instructions on its contents.
    * The alleged influencer arranged for the attorney to meet with the testator, ensuring their presence during the will’s execution.
    * The alleged influencer frequently discussed the testator’s estate plans, steering conversations toward their desired outcomes.
    * The alleged influencer was the primary witness during the signing of the testamentary instrument, raising questions about their influence.
    * The alleged influencer had access to the testator’s personal documents and financial information, which they used to manipulate the will’s provisions.

  • Element 3. The person alleged to have exerted undue influence would benefit unduly by the testamentary instrument. This means that the person accused of pressuring someone to change their will stands to gain unfairly from that change, suggesting they may have manipulated the situation for their own benefit rather than allowing the true wishes of the person making the will to be honored.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The individual alleged to have exerted undue influence was the primary beneficiary of the decedent’s will, receiving a significantly larger share of the estate than other family members.
    * The decedent had previously expressed a desire to distribute their assets equally among all heirs, contradicting the terms of the new testamentary instrument.
    * The alleged influencer was present during the drafting of the will and actively participated in discussions about the decedent’s estate plans.
    * The decedent’s mental capacity was in decline at the time the will was executed, raising questions about their ability to make informed decisions.
    * The alleged influencer isolated the decedent from other family members, limiting their access to alternative perspectives on estate planning.

(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 3117. Bertero v. National General Corp., 529 P. 2d 608 – Cal: Supreme Court 1974. David v. Hermann, 28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 622 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 2005. Rice v. Clark, supra, 28 Cal.4th 89, 97, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 522, 47 P.3d 300.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Defense of Undue Influence, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to effectively present your Defense of Undue Influence.

Prove Your CA Undue Influence Defense

U.S. Civil Cases Only

Just a moment please.