50 State Undue Influence Project: Utah Undue Influence Expert Definitions
In an effort to provide a better understanding for what undue influence expert psychologists look for when forming opinions about whether undue influence occurred in the execution of a will, trust, beneficiary designation, or other contractual document, I am highlighting the statutes, case law, and jury instructions specific to all 50 states. Each will be in its own blog post. Forty-fourth up, Utah.
In re: Estate of Ioupe, 878 P.2d 1168, 1172 (Utah Ct. App. 1994):
There must be an exhibition of more than influence or suggestions, there must be substantial proof of an overpowering of the testator’s volition at the time the will was made, to the extent he is impelled to do that which he would not have done had he been free from such controlling influence, so that the will represents the desires of the person exercising the influence rather than that of the testator (quoting In re: Lavelle’s Estate, 248, P.2d 372, 374-76 (Utah 1952).
The presumption of undue influence exists where a confidential relationship exists between the testator and the beneficiary of the will. Confidential relationships are presumed in professional relationships. Others are a question of fact.
In re: Bryan’s Estate 25 P.2d 602 (Utah 1933):
Undue influence maybe established without showing any physical coercion or constraint. The influence that vitiates may be subtle in the entirely without outward demonstration, but in whatever form it may appear in must, nevertheless, be made to appear competent evidence that the role of the one accused of practicing undue influence dominated the will of the testator -- better testament is in fact and effect the will of the accused and not that of the testator.
Mere general or reasonable influence over at testator is not sufficient to invalidate a will; To have that effect the influence must be undue. The rule as to what constitutes undue influence has been variously stated but the substance of the different statements is that, to be sufficient to avoid a well, the influence exerted must be the kind that so overpowers the mind of the testator as to destroy his free agency and make him express the will of another, rather than his own. The mere existence of undue influence, or an opportunity exercise at, is not sufficient; Such influence must be actually exerted on the mind of the testator in regard to the execution of the will in question, either at the time of the execution of the will, or so near thereto as he still operative, with the object of procuring a will in favor of and it must result in the making of testamentary dispositions which the testator would not otherwise have made. No precise quantity of influence can be said to be necessary insufficient in all cases, as the amount necessarily varies with the circumstances of each case, and especially does it vary accordingly as the strength or weakness of mind of each testator varies, the amount of influence necessary to dominate a mind by age, disease, or dissipation being obviously less but not required to control a strong mind.
The influence over a testator of one who is his wife, child, guardian, attorney, spiritual advisor, or who occupies some other confidential relation to him, is not necessarily undue influence, although it may, when coupled with other circumstances, raise a presumption of undue influence; But the question must be determined, as in all other cases, by ascertaining whether the free agency of the testator has been destroyed.
Utah Code Ann. § 75-3-407:
Contestants of a will have the burden of establishing lack of testamentary intent or capacity, undue influence, fraud, duress, mistake, or revocation. Except in cases where a presumption is operable, parties have the ultimate burden of persuasion as to matters with respect to which they have the initial burden of proof. Where one or more presumptions are operable, the ultimate burden of persuasion shall be determined in accordance with the Utah Rules of Evidence.
In re: Estate of Jones, 759 P.2d 345, 347 (Utah App. 1988):
Undue influence is presumed where a confidential relationship exists between the testator and the beneficiary of the will.
Such a confidential relationship arises when one party, after having gained the trust and confidence of another call mom exercise is extraordinary influence over the other party.
While kinship may be a factor in determining the existence of a legally significant confidential relationship, there must be a showing, in addition to the kinship, of a report sentence by one party and the resulting superiority and influence on the other party yet mirror confidence in one by other is not sufficient alone to constitute such a relationship.