50 State Undue Influence Project: Vermont 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-fifth up, Vermont.
In re: Estate of Roche, 736 A.2d 777 (1999):
Undue influence occurs when the testator no longer exercises free will, causing the resulting document to be tainted.
In re: Estate of Raedel, 568 A.2d 331 (1989):
The doctrine of undue influence is applicable when a testator's free will is destroyed, and as a result, the testator does something contrary to his true desires; The burden to prove undue influence is normally placed on those contesting the will, that is, the will is presumed proper an enforceable unless its contestants demonstrate sufficient evidence of undue influence.
On a claim that the will was product of undue influence, burden of shifts to the proponents of the will when the circumstances connected with the execution of the will are such as the law regards with suspicion; if such circumstances are present, the role is presumed to be the product of undue influence, and it will not be enforced unless the proponent persuades the trier of fact that no undue influence attended the execution of the will.
Undue influence does not necessarily include an element of fraud; fraud, whether actual or constructive, requires wrongdoing and conscious participation of the alleged wrongdoer; Undue influence does not. There is no requirement that persons responsible for undue influence have a fraudulent state of mind.
The elements of undue influence include overcoming by means of coercion the sound judgment and free will of the testator so that she does something contrary to her true wishes.
Existence of suspicious circumstances connected with the execution of well, which are sufficient to raise presumption of undue influence, is a preliminary question for determination by the court.
Suspicious circumstances sufficient to raise presumption of undue influence are typically present where a testator's fiduciary benefits in the will.
Presumption of undue influence should not apply relationship between testator and beneficiaries was one between aunt and nieces and nephews, and the beneficiaries did not assist in preparing the will.
The presumption of undue influence causes the burden of proof to shift to the proponent of the will by a preponderance of the evidence.