- The testamentary capacity and freedom from undue influence of the person executing the will
- b. All beneficiaries named in the will and all the testators heirs apparent must be made parties to the action
- 3. Insane Delusion
- a. False sense of reality in which a person lives, despite evidence to the contrary
- Delusion is a false perception of reality, basically a mistake
- Extremely fact sensitive; More preposterous, more likely an insane delusion
- Courts generally reluctant to apply doctrine to religious/spiritual beliefs
- b. Majority Approach: Rational Person Test
- If a rational person in the testator’s situation could not have reached the same conclusion, the belief is an insane delusion (not would not have reached)
- c. Minority Approach: Any Factual Basis to Support Test
- If there is any factual basis to support testator’s belief, not an insane delusion
- More protective of testator’s intent, no room for jury to substitute their own beliefs
- d. Causation: Effects of Testator’s Insane Delusion
- “But for” Causation (Majority): But for the insane delusion, the testator would not have disposed of property as they did
- 1. Some jurisdictions soften the standard, requiring only that delusion materially affect the will’s provisions (compromise between maj/min)
- 2. More protective of testator’s intent
- Minority Approach: Insane delusion might have affected the disposition of the testator’s property
- 1. Standard is so low, it is almost always satisfied
- e. Traumatic Effect Doctrine
- Case law indicates that, if the person contesting the will proves that some trauma suffered by the testator altered their views, easier to establish an insane delusion
- 4. Undue Influence
- a. Substituted intent – when one influence the testator to the extent that the will expresses the influencer’s intent, not the testator’s intent (e.g. mental coercion)
- Rarely any direct evidence of undue influence, purely circumstantial
- b. Traditional doctrine for Undue Influence
- Susceptibility: Was testator susceptible to undue influence?
- Opportunity: Did defendant have opportunity to exert undue influence?
- Motive: Did the defendant have a motive for exerting undue influence?
- Causation: Did the undue influence cause the testator to dispose of his property in a way the testator would not have otherwise
- c. Burden-shifting Approach: Meet elements; Rebuttable presumption of undue influence
- Step-by-step Analysis
- 1. There was a confidential relationship btwn the defendant and testator;
- a. No bright line rule; Minimum, testator must confide in other party
- 2. The defendant receives the bulk of the testator’s estate; and
- 3. The testator was of weakened intellect
- Where the plaintiff can prove the three elements by this particular evidence, then a presumption of causation arises, and the burden shifts to the defendant to prove there was no undue influence
- d. R3d of Property, Donative Transfers
- Confidential relationship is not enough to raise a suspicion of undue influence
- 1. Confidential relationship + suspicious circumstances are sufficient to raise an inference of abuse of confidential relationship
- All relevant facts may be taken into account to consider what is a suspicious circumstance