50 State Undue Influence Project: Washington 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-seventh up, Washington.
In re: Estate of Lint, 135 Wn.2d 518, 535, 947 P.2d 755 (1998):
A will executed by a person with testamentary capacity may be invalidated if undue influence existed at the time of the testamentary act (citing Dean v. Jordan, 194 Wash. 661 (1938)).
Undue influence that is sufficient to void a will must be something more than mere influence but, rather, influence which, at the time of the testamentary act, controlled the volition of the testator, interfered with his free will, and prevented an exercise of his judgment and choice, (citing In re: Estate of Bottger, 14 Wn,2d 676 (1942)).
Dean v. Jordan, 194 Wash. 661, 79 P.2d 331 (1938):
The will contestant bears the burden of proving the will’s illegality by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.
Suspicious facts and circumstances that could raise a presumption of undue influence:
That the beneficiary occupied a fiduciary or confidential relation to the testator;
That the beneficiary actively participated in the preparation or procurement of the will; and
That the beneficiary received an unusually or unnaturally large part of the estate.
Added to these may be other considerations, such as the age or condition of health and mental vigor of the testator, the nature and degree of the relationship between the testator and the beneficiary, the opportunity for exerting an undue influence, and the naturalness or unnaturalness of the will.
If the presumption of undue influence is raised, the will proponent must produce evidence to rebut the presumption. The absence of rebuttal evidence may be sufficient to set aside a will, but the contestant retains the ultimate burden of proof.
In re: Estate of Martinson, 29 Wn.2d 912, 914-915, 190 P.2d 96 (1948):
Circumstantial evidence may be used to establish suspicious facts that raise a presumption of undue influence.