Undue Influence: Checklist of Possible Indicators of Undue Influence

                                                              trust and estate lawyers nyc

There is no simple test for determining whether there is a valid objection to a will on the basis of undue influence.  It is a question of fact for a judge or jury to determine, often based on circumstantial evidence.  No single factor is determinative and all relevant facts should be taken under consideration.  Solely for the illustrative purposes of this blog post the “testator” is the deceased maker of the will, the “proponent” is a person or entity (such as a charity) seeking to have the will admitted to probate and alleged to have used undue influence to obtain a benefit under the will, and the “objectant” is a person or entity objecting to the probate of the will based on it being the result of the proponent’s undue influence on the testator.    

Here is a list of considerations that may be relevant, especially when several are simultaneously present, to an evaluation of whether there may be a valid objection to the probate of a will based on undue influence:

  1.    Is the alleged undue influence more than a mere request by the proponent-beneficiary to be treated kindly by the Testator?  (“Dad, since I am almost bankrupt due to no fault of my own, your will should leave more to me than to my filthy rich siblings.”) 
  2.    Did the alleged undue influence amount to imposing the will of the proponent-beneficiary’s upon the testator?  (Restraining testator’s independent action and destroying testator’s free agency by, in effect, substituting the intent of the proponent-beneficiary.) 
  3.    There must be actual acts of alleged undue influence.  (Such as, by way of example only, the proponent-beneficiary repeatedly demanding of a bed-ridden infirm testator that a will be changed and making clear that the testator was dependent on the proponent-beneficiary for adequate home health care.)
  4.    Is there a causal relationship between the alleged undue influence and the bequest to the proponent-beneficiary leading to an actual benefit to the proponent-beneficiary?  (Testator to lawyer: “Please draw up the will so that my crazy son, who has been trying to pressure me to leave him more than he deserves, gets most of my estate—not because of his pathetic attempts to intimidate me, but because I promised his late mother I would take care of him no matter how obnoxiously he behaved towards me.”) 
  5.    Did the proponent-beneficiary have a motive to use undue influence on the testator?  (Perhaps the beneficiary was under terrible financial pressure from creditors and desperately needed the bequest.) 
  6.    Did the beneficiary have an opportunity to use undue influence on the testator?  (Perhaps the testator was living in the home of the proponent-beneficiary.) 
  7.    Was there a fiduciary or confidential relationship between the testator and the proponent-beneficiary?  (Such as a lawyer, clergyman, accountant/financial advisor, or guardian of the testator, usually acting in the absence of meaningful independent countervailing advice to the testator.) 
  8.    Was the testator in a weakened mental state when the alleged undue influence took place?  (This could be, by way of example only, the after-effects of a stroke, severe depression after the loss of a loved one, early stages of dementia, or while under strong pain medication after major surgery.) 
  9.    Was the testator of advanced age?  (This could mean mid to late eighties or older.) 
  10. Did the proponent-beneficiary isolate the testator from the objectant during the relevant period?  (This could involve wrongfully interfering with visits or communications to testator by the objectant or by otherwise restricting access to the testator.)
  11.    Was the testator very dependent upon the proponent-beneficiary, who is alleged to have exercised dominance and control over the testator?  (This could be physical dependence, such as for living accommodations, assistance in activities of daily living, and home health care, or the psychological dependence of a testator who is very lonely, anxious, and fearful.) 
  12.    Did the proponent-beneficiary exercise control over testator’s assets prior to the making of the will?  (As by managing testator’s finances.) 
  13.    Did the testator feel threatened by the proponent-beneficiary?  (This may be shown by the testimony or statements third parties to whom the testator may have said that he or she felt threatened by the proponent-testator or that the testator found the proponent-testator to be very intimidating.)
  14.    Was there conduct tantamount to duress and coercion by the proponent-beneficiary?  (For example, a daughter says “If you don’t give me your house in your will, you will never see your grandchildren again.”)
  15.    Was there a history of elder abuse against the testator in which the proponent-beneficiary played a role.   (For example, by being the abuser or by being present and passive while a spouse engaged in a pattern of elder abuse.) 
  16.    Is the proponent-beneficiary a serial undue influencer?  (People who have exhibited a prior pattern of establishing relationships with vulnerable elderly or infirm wealthy people and then being named in their wills.)
  17.    Is the proponent-beneficiary someone who would not normally be expected to inherit from the testator to the exclusion of the family?  (Such as a health care attendant who might be expected to receive some bequest, but not the entire inheritance.) 
  18.    Has the proponent-beneficiary engaged in a pattern of relationship poisoning and self-promotion?  (This is akin to the proponent-beneficiary brain-washing the testator by repeatedly bad-mouthing the objectant, while constantly praising himself or herself.) 
  19.    Had there been financial exploitation of the testator by the proponent-beneficiary during the years preceding the making of the will?  (This could take the form, at times when the testator was in a weakened state, of inducing the testator to create trusts or make unusually large loans and gifts benefiting the proponent-beneficiary.) 
  20.    Is the will at issue a major departure from prior wills?  (For example, three wills divide the estate equally between the proponent-beneficiary and the objectant, but the will at issue disinherits the objectant.)
  21.    Is the will at issue a major departure from testator’s prior expressions of testamentary intent?  (For example, the testator has, before witnesses, told relatives that the objectant would inherit, but then the will gives all to the proponent beneficiary.) 
  22.    Did the proponent-beneficiary choose a lawyer with whom the proponent-beneficiary had a prior relationship as the attorney to draft the testator’s will?  (This could be the proponent-beneficiary’s own attorney or someone with who the proponent-beneficiary had some other relationship that could be expected to result in loyalty to the proponent-beneficiary.) 
  23.    Did the attorney draftsperson of the will depart from generally accepted estate planning procedures?   (This could be many things, such as the lack of records, the absence of sufficient inquiry regarding a change from a prior will, or a failure to confirm testamentary capacity.)
  24.    Was the proponent-beneficiary have involvement in the process of drafting the will?  (This could mean drafting or suggesting particular provisions, acting as a means of communication between the testator and the attorney who drafted the will, or being physically present when the attorney and the testator discussed the provisions to be incorporated into the will.) 
  25.    Was the proponent-beneficiary present when the will was executed?    (This may be combined with the proponent-beneficiary personally transporting the testator to and from the will execution ceremony or, possibly, having it take place at the proponent-beneficiary’s residence.)

The foregoing is not intended to be an exhaustive list of considerations in evaluating a potential undue influence claim.  Drawing conclusions from two or three instances of conduct described above may possibly lead to an incorrect conclusion.  This is an analysis that should be performed by experienced estate litigation counsel.      



Probate and Trust Litigation Avoidance: Mediation FAQs

trust and estate lawyers nyc

What is Mediation?

A mediation is an assisted settlement negotiation.  In a typical mediation, two parties that want to settle a dispute agree to call upon a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to assist them to achieve their mutual objective.  If the parties are sincere in their desire for a settlement and the mediator is experienced and qualified, then it is likely that a settlement will be achieved.  The parties may agree upon certain preliminary mediation ground rules relating to, for example, selection of the mediator, confidentiality of the mediation proceedings, and the sharing of certain expenses, such as the costs of the mediator’s services and, possibly, of the mediation conference facilities.  It is not the role of the mediator to judge the merits of the dispute, declare a winner and loser, and impose a judgment, penalty, or award.  The role of the mediator is to help the parties arrive at a compromise, ideally a win-win solution that maximizes the total benefit to all the parties.    

What Usually Happens in Mediation?

The mediator will often have an initial meeting or conference call with the parties and their counsel, or possibly just with counsel.  The mediator may then confirm the preliminary mediation ground rules agreed upon by the parties and inform the parties of how the mediator expects the parties to proceed, usually including a requirement that all key decision-makers attend the mediation or, if that is not possible, be available by phone during the entire mediation.  The mediator may ask for a joint written mediation submission setting forth what is agreed upon by the parties, what is disputed, and, possibly, some information regarding the background and history of the dispute.  The mediator may also invite each party to make a confidential mediation submission to the mediator presenting that party’s side of the dispute, suggestions regarding the best approach to settling the dispute, and, possibly, what that party is and is not willing to agree to in order to achieve a settlement in the mediation. 

At the mediation session, the parties may make initial presentations of their positions with all parties present, after which the mediator may separately meet with each party and that party’s counsel.  There may then be some “shuttle diplomacy,” during which the mediator alternately meets with the parties as the mediator closes in on a mutually acceptable settlement.  The mediator’s techniques may include separately advising each parties that its expectations in the mediation are unrealistic, that its case is not as airtight as it thought, and that there may be underestimated strengths in the opposing side’s position.  Usually every effort will be made to craft a creative mutually beneficial win-win solution, in which neither side is left empty-handed, neither side loses face, and both sides have something of real value to show for their efforts.  As the parties begin to show some flexibility and the prospect of a mediation settlement appears more likely, the mediator may ask to meet privately with each party, outside the presence of counsel, for a final round of reality checks, benevolent arm-twisting, and common sense advice.  Finally, the mediator may meet with all the parties and propose a mediation settlement to which all parties have, in principle, already agreed in their private meetings with the mediator.  Finally, if the mediation has succeeded, the details are ironed out and the parties’ agreement is recorded in a term sheet signed by both parties.

What Are Some Benefits of Mediation?

The major benefit of mediation is control over outcome.  There are only two possibilities at the end of a mediation: no settlement or a settlement that both parties have agreed upon. In a trial or in binding arbitration, the possibility of a glorious victory is balanced by the possibility of a humiliating defeat.  Good mediators can often provide a reasonably accurate prediction of what will probably happen if the case is tried.  That prediction can provide an informed basis for a fair mediation settlement.  However, any trial is still, to some extent, a roll of the dice.  It is not unheard of for juries to return verdicts that experts, in opinions expressed before the trial, had not predicted.  Mediation reduces this uncertainty. 

Another major benefit of mediation is cost.  The costs of compensating the lawyers and the mediator for their services, is usually a small fraction of the costs of protracted litigation with charges incurred for discovery proceedings, motion practice, litigation support personnel, legal research, transcripts, expert witnesses, a trial, and then a possible appeal.  Mediation costs can be reduced through narrowing the issues to be mediated by agreeing, before the mediation on items not in contention or where the parties’ differences are minimal.  Then the mediator can use the mediation time to focus on the issues at the heart of the dispute.  The choice of a mediator who is trusted by both sides and who is familiar with the kind of matter being mediated increases the likelihood of a successful, less costly and time-consuming mediation.  A well-crafted settlement may also have tax advantages over a litigation outcome.  Parties should also bear in mind one less obvious cost of a drawn out and demanding full-fledged litigation: diversion of their own attention and precious time from other matters and pursuits.  Parties need to consider, as a cost, the value of their own lost “litigation time” that would otherwise have been devoted to their families, their businesses, and personal commitments.          

An equally important benefit of mediation is the possibility of preserving relationships or, at least, minimizing the damage to relationships.  Corporate parties to a mediation may still have to do business with each other after the mediation.  Resolving their differences in a confidential mediation may help both parties avoid public relations damage and may open the door to a resolution to their dispute that has economic benefits for both parties—something that a public court battle is unlikely to achieve.  Similarly, individual parties to a dispute may be part of the same family group or may share child-raising responsibilities.  Resolving their differences in a confidential mediation may minimize damage due to strained family relationships and washing previously private dirty linen in a public forum.  The fact that there is no winner or loser in a mediation may enhance the prospects for an eventual reconciliation.  Mediation is far from a perfect solution.  However, where interparty negotiations have not been able to close the gap between the parties’ positions, mediation is a dispute resolution alternative well worth exploring.

Probate and Trust Litigation Avoidance: Techniques for Experienced Estate Planning Counsel

trust and estate lawyers nyc

An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure 

Because of the financial and emotional toll imposed by probate and trust litigation, every reasonable effort should be made to avoid such litigation.  Retaining experienced estate planning counsel is an important first step in enabling families to avoid costly and protracted trust and probate litigation.  A building with a firm foundation is less likely to face the possibility of collapse.  However, the owner of the house, who gives the builder instructions, also bears responsibility for the result.  Experienced estate planning counsel will advise regarding how to minimize the chances of estate litigation.  If that advice is disregarded, the instructions given to the estate planning counsel may result in a will or trust with provisions that are unreasonable, inconsistent, or likely to cause conflict.  However, even a first-rate estate planner is not a guarantee against litigation by some conflict-prone or irrational relative, just as a sound foundation of a house may not protect it against the ravages of an earthquake or other natural disaster.  Nonetheless, retaining experienced estate planning counsel is an excellent first line of defense in avoiding probate and trust litigation.       

Identifying Competent Estate Planning Counsel

How does one find the right estate planning counsel who can help avoid litigation?  It may well be the attorney who has been advising your family for years.  You want an attorney who is experienced and can see likely problems before they materialize.  You want someone who has no conflict or interest and will not be perceived to be giving advice based upon personal relationships with other family members.  Not every estate planning lawyer can have gone to a prestigious law school, be a partner in a top law firm, have the highest ratings on Internet attorney sites, lecture at educational programs for fellow attorneys, belong to prestigious estate planning professional organizations, have written books and articles on estate planning, and been recognized for excellence by his or her peers.  But if the value of the estate is substantial, it is not unreasonable to look for an attorney with substantial estate planning experience and at least a modest record of achievement.  Having a lot of experience with probate and trust litigation arising from his or her own planning work may not be the best indicator, since the ideal estate planning attorney minimizes such outcomes. 

A Sampling of Litigation Avoidance Techniques for Experienced Estate Planning Counsel

While good draftsmanship of wills and trusts is certainly a necessity, it is equally important that estate planning counsel know everything that he or she needs to know about the client’s property and business interests, mental and physical health,  and relevant personal and family relationships.  Armed with this knowledge (usually recorded in meticulous notes of meetings held with the client requesting the will), litigation avoidance measures may be taken.  If, for example, the family thinks Aunt Clara is applying undue pressure to get a large bequest, perhaps she should not be present during the estate planning process and the will should not be drafted by her niece, the personal injury lawyer.  If the will is for someone who is 95 years old and there will be foreseeable claims of lack of testamentary capacity, an examination by the appropriately qualified medical professional, shortly before the will is executed, might be helpful.  

Sometimes an estate planning professional will discuss with his or her client the possibility of having a family meeting to discuss the estate plan or, perhaps, the option of leaving behind a letter, written by the client and to be opened after the client passes.  Such a letter might, for example, explain why nephew Herbert, who almost bankrupted the family business, is getting a spendthrift trust and not the stock he wanted in the family business.  Less frequently used litigation avoidance techniques include videotaping parts of the estate planning process, the use of multiple wills executed at intervals, or including a clause in the will penalizing with a lesser bequest any beneficiary who challenges the validity of the will.  Some of these measures can be two-edged swords and can backfire when employed by the less experienced estate planning attorney.  Lastly, when a probate or trust litigation seems highly likely, an alternative may be to seek mediation or use the collaborative approach discussed in a prior blog.  


Probate and Trust Litigation Avoidance: The Collaborative Approach


trust and estate lawyers nyc

Need for Trust and Probate Litigation Avoidance

Most trust and estate litigations can and should be avoided. The financial and emotional toll of probate litigations is much too high.  Estate planning professionals are trained to optimally preserve, protect, and transfer wealth–not to suffer as bystanders while their clients’ wealth is dissipated through costly courtroom battles. Some planning professionals also have formidable courtroom skills, but not many possess the full spectrum of skills necessary for successful probate litigation avoidance. All know that when it comes to avoiding will contests and fiduciary disputes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The Collaborative Approach

One method of minimizing later conflict is to adopt a collaborative approach to inheritance litigation avoidance. This calls for a multidisciplinary collaborative approach calibrated to the magnitude of the assets involved. Which disciplines should be called upon will depend upon the particular family situation. Valuable contributions may be made by business advisers with expertise in family businesses, wealth managers, psychologists and social workers, eldercare professionals, and highly experienced litigators who can recognize danger signs and propose solutions.

Working as a team with the estate planning professional a “threat assessment” can be made, trouble spots identified, and creative solutions devised. In some instances this interdisciplinary team may be most effective working with and through the estate planner. In other instances some or all members of the team may be called upon to work directly with the potential or actual disputants. It may sometimes be helpful if the group, including counsel, pledges no involvement in any subsequent litigation if agreement cannot be reached.

Early Intervention Desirable

As regards timing, the earlier the intervention, the better. Each family situation is unique and there are no cookie-cutter solutions. In those situations that are headed for conflict, the estate planner may see the storm clouds on the horizon while the testator is still alive and well. In such instances there may be value in the testator explaining, for example, that a provision in the estate plan is not a sign that he or she favors one sibling over the other, but merely a recognition of their differing needs. Family counseling may help reconcile estranged relatives to the point where they will not need to act out their conflicts through estate litigation. A family business adviser may offer proposals for passing on a family business in a way that is both fair to all concerned, yet gives the business a chance to succeed. Perhaps an experienced litigator can identify the choice of a trustee, despite that person’s unquestioned competence, as a potential lightening rod for contentiousness due to his or her perceived favoritism toward one of the beneficiaries.

The collaborative approach has been successful, at times, in avoiding matrimonial litigation. When selectively employed in the planning and probate context, it has a place in the avoidance of costly, public, and protracted trust and estate litigation.