.webp)
.png)
One topic which we will aim to cover in greater and greater depth moving forward in the topic of challenging or caveating a will. Part of the reason why we intend to cover this topic in depth is because understanding how wills are challenged can lead to more secure and airtight documents in the future. In other words, the more our readers understand how wills can be undermined, the better they will be able to guard against vulnerabilities and ensure that their documents withstand any possible challenges at some future point.
One of the more common challenges against a will is this notion of “undue influence.” In the context of a caveat, undue influence has a relatively narrow meaning: essentially, to qualify as undue influence, the influence must be quite strong, and ultimately it must strip the testator of legitimate agency. Undue influence does not mean that the alleged perpetrator simply “persuaded” or aggressively suggested certain things, the perpetrator needs to exert extreme influence to the point where the testator is basically robbed of a genuine choice. Hence, undue influence is meant to encompass a relatively limited range of behaviors.
The case of Wall v. Heller (1985) provides a key precedent when it comes to understanding how undue influence is construed by Maryland courts. Let’s examine this case in detail.
Factual Posture of the Case
The testator drafted and finalized a last will and testament which named his nephew as the sole heir and beneficiary. When the will was ultimately admitted to probate following the demise of the testator, the nephew refused to accept the will’s validity and challenged it on several grounds. In addition to arguing lack of mental capacity and fraud, the nephew contended that the will had come about as a result of undue influence. Again, in this context, Maryland law requires very substantial involvement from a third party in order to sustain a finding of undue influence. To fully know the contours of this concept in Maryland law, we would of course need to identify and discuss all the factual scenarios in which this concept has been found. The critical thing is that the third party must be effectively removing free agency from the testator, such that the testator is not truly acting with a free and independent volition.
The nephew was unsuccessful at the trial court level and then subsequently appealed. The defendant in this case, the will’s personal representative, Mary Heller, provided enough evidence to satisfy that the will was valid on its face at trial. This meant that the burden was firmly on the challenger, the nephew, to substantiate his core allegation that there had been undue influence.
Ruling & Post-Ruling Analysis
The appellate division upheld the ruling of the trial court, finding that the nephew failed to overcome the presumption of validity and determined that a finding of undue influence was improper. Importantly, the nephew did his best to introduce evidence which supported his contentions at the trial court level. He primarily introduced testimonial evidence pertaining to his relationship with the testator, as well as testimonial evidence relating to the testator’s relationship with the other interested parties. Ultimately, the trial court did not find his evidence compelling, as it did not satisfy the high bar needed to establish undue influence. Because the appellate review standard requires clear indications of error to overturn the trial court ruling, the appellate division was ultimately compelled to uphold the trial court’s determination.
The key takeaway here for readers is that, once a will has been established as facially valid, the burden of proof to overcome facial validity and establish undue influence is quite high. If you’re planning to caveat a will on the basis of alleged undue influence, you need to have firm and clear evidence of serious intermingling with the testator. The testator must be basically placed in a position where he or she “must” carry out the will; in a sense, undue influence is nearly equivalent to duress, the concept taken directly from contract formation.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
Readers who want to know more about undue influence in overturning or challenging wills, the legal presumption involved in allegations of undue influence or fraud, drafting a last will and testament, or any other pertinent estate planning matter, contact one of the estate planning attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
.png)
.png)
