Opinion ID: 1312586
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: was there intent to exercise undue influence?

Text: Appellants contend Weeks had an intent or disposition to exercise undue influence over Floyd Goff because she was burned out, embarrassed, and upset about sharing insurance with Donna Goff and because she did not seek advice for Floyd Goff. Brief for appellants at 45. We do not agree. Evidence that the party benefiting by the document executed made no attempt to keep others from seeing and conversing with the party tends to show the absence of a disposition to exert undue influence. See Fremont Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Beerbohm, 223 Neb. 657, 392 N.W.2d 767 (1986). Weeks informed Donna Goff and the children of Floyd Goff's hospitalization and allowed them to visit him alone in the hospital. Weeks called Bill Olson, who was Floyd Goff's friend and manager at Prudential, with a request for him to visit Floyd Goff. Lastly, Weeks obtained the change of beneficiary forms for him and helped fill them out, per his request. In fact, Weeks obtained additional change forms for him after she had been named sole beneficiary, again per his request. We find that there is insufficient evidence to prove that Weeks intended to gain an unfair advantage by devices which reasonable persons would regard as improper.