Opinion ID: 1191875
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lay Opinion Testimony Is Admissible to Establish Undue Influence, Insofar as It Tends to Prove Undue Influence at Time of the Will's Execution.

Text: In this regard, Page on Wills states: If a witness first testifies to facts which tend to show undue influence, is it proper to ask him for his opinion as to whether or not testator was induced to make his will by the exercise of undue influence? Upon this question the courts have divided. Some courts have held that, under such circumstances, the witness may give his opinion. Other courts have held that the witness cannot give his opinion. This result has been reached, in part at least, on the theory that this question is for the jury, and that such a question asks the witness, in effect, to tell the jury what verdict he thinks they should render. Even if the witness may give his opinion, it must be a reasonably clear and definite one as to the existence and effect of undue influence. The opinion of a witness as to the existence of undue influence is inadmissible unless he first states the facts upon which he bases such opinion. . . . The opinion of the witness is inadmissible if relating to facts so remote from the execution of the will as to have no value as evidence of undue influence at the time of such execution. 3 Page on Wills, supra, § 29.123, at 666-67 (footnotes omitted). Page on Wills also states that evidence of the conduct of beneficiaries and heirs is admissible if it tends to prove or disprove the existence of undue influence. Evidence . . . that a beneficiary . . . was a man of good character . . . is admissible. If it is found that the beneficiary burned letters and papers which had belonged to the testator, the jury may infer that such letters and papers contained evidence which would have been unfavorable to the beneficiary. Evidence that the beneficiary removed papers from testator's safety deposit box soon after testator's death is admissible. Such evidence is not admissible if it does not tend to prove or disprove undue influence. Evidence as to the general conduct of the person by whom it is alleged that undue influence was exerted, such as the fact that such a person, who was a lawyer, had been guilty of professional misconduct toward other clients, or the fact that one of the beneficiaries had consulted with testator's attorney a considerable period of time before the will was executed, or that one of the beneficiaries had not employed counsel to represent him at contest, or that certain persons were present at the probate of the will, or that the beneficiaries were members of a certain society, or that the beneficiaries had been guilty of misstatements of fact which did not involve the interest of the testator; or that the person who was claimed to have exerted undue influence was insane, or that the woman, by whom undue influence is alleged to have been exerted on her daughter-in-law to procure a will in favor of the latter's husband, was stingy, or that the beneficiary had sought to study hypnotism so as to hypnotize testator and thus to secure a will in his favor, in the absence of evidence tending to show that he actually studied hypnotism or made use thereof, or that the husband of testatrix was a drunkard, is inadmissible. 3 Page on Wills, supra, § 29.196, at 681-82 (emphases added). Accordingly, character evidence in the form of lay opinion testimony and specific instances of conduct is admissible if it tends to prove the exertion of undue influence at the time of the will's execution.