How To Prove A Texas Undue Influence Defense
In Texas, 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.
It simply means:
When someone else persuades a weaker party to sign a contract.
There are 4 elements of the defense:
- Element 1. The person making the will or other instrument was vulnerable to undue influence. A person is considered vulnerable to undue influence if they are in a weakened state, such as being elderly, ill, or emotionally dependent, making them more susceptible to manipulation by someone who may take advantage of their situation to sway their decisions, like in a will.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The testator was experiencing significant health issues, including cognitive decline, which impaired their ability to make informed decisions.
* The individual who benefited from the will had exclusive access to the testator, limiting contact with other family members and friends.
* The testator had a history of relying on the beneficiary for assistance with daily activities, creating a power imbalance.
* The will was executed shortly after the testator underwent a major life change, such as the loss of a spouse, leaving them emotionally vulnerable.
* The beneficiary exerted pressure on the testator to change their will, often discussing financial matters in a persuasive manner. - Element 2. The defendant exerted an influence on the vulnerable person. The defendant used their power or control to manipulate someone who was weak or easily swayed, making that person act in a way they wouldn’t have otherwise, often in situations involving important decisions or agreements.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant frequently visited the vulnerable person, often isolating them from family and friends during these visits.
* The defendant provided emotional support to the vulnerable person, creating a dependency that made it difficult for them to make independent decisions.
* The defendant was aware of the vulnerable person’s financial difficulties and offered to manage their finances, leading to a loss of autonomy.
* The defendant often made decisions on behalf of the vulnerable person, claiming to know what was best for them without their consent.
* The vulnerable person expressed confusion and uncertainty about their own wishes when discussing decisions influenced by the defendant. - Element 3. The effective operation of influence was to subvert or overpower the mind of the vulnerable person at the time the instrument was executed. The effective operation of influence means that someone used their power to manipulate or control a vulnerable person’s thoughts and decisions when they signed a document, making it unfair or invalid due to the pressure applied at that moment.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The vulnerable person was experiencing significant emotional distress and relied heavily on the influencer for support at the time the instrument was executed.
* The influencer isolated the vulnerable person from family and friends, limiting their ability to seek independent advice or support.
* The influencer had a history of manipulating the vulnerable person’s decisions, demonstrating a pattern of control over their actions and choices.
* The vulnerable person was not fully aware of the implications of the instrument due to cognitive decline, making them susceptible to the influencer’s persuasion.
* The influencer exerted pressure on the vulnerable person during the execution of the instrument, creating an atmosphere of urgency and fear. - Element 4. The execution of the instrument would not have happened but for such influence. This means that the person who signed the document only did so because they were pressured or manipulated by someone else, and they wouldn’t have agreed to it without that influence.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The testator was in a vulnerable state due to declining health and relied heavily on the defendant for daily care and decision-making.
* The defendant isolated the testator from family and friends, limiting outside influence and support during the decision-making process.
* The defendant repeatedly expressed their own financial needs and desires, pressuring the testator to change their will in favor of the defendant.
* The testator had previously expressed a different intention regarding their estate, but the defendant convinced them to alter it shortly before their passing.
* The defendant was present during the execution of the will and actively participated in discussions about its contents, raising concerns about the testator’s true intentions.
(See In re Estate of Scott, 601 SW 3d 77 – Tex: Court of Appeals, 8th Dist. 2020. Fielding v. Tullos, No. 09-17-00203-cv, 2018 Wl 4138971 (Tex. Court of Appeals 2018). Rothermel v. Duncan, 369 SW 2d 917 – Tex: Supreme Court 1963.)
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 TX Undue Influence Defense
U.S. Civil Cases Only
