50 State Undue Influence Project: Pennsylvania 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. Thirty-eighth up, Pennsylvania.
In re: Paul’s Estate, 180 A.2d 254 (Pa. 1962):
Undue influence arises when:
A person is in a confidential relationship with the person making the will;
The person receives a substantial benefit under the proposed will; and
The person making the will had a “weakened intellect” at or around the time of the signing of the will.
Paolini Will, 13 Fiduc. Rep. 2d 185 (O.C. Montag. 1993):
Weakened Intellect is a mind which is “inferior to normal minds in reasoning power, factual knowledge, freedom of thought and decision, and other characteristics of a fully competent mentality,”
Owens v. Mazzei, 847 A.2d 700 (Pa. Super. 2004):
Weakened Intellect can be caused by persistent confusion, forgetfulness, and disorientation.
A Confidential Relationship arises when the parties do not deal on equal terms, but rather there is an overmastering influence on one side and on the other weakness, dependence or trust, justifiably reposed.
Estate of Clark, 334 A.2d 628, 635 (Pa. 1975):
Undue influence is a subtle, intangible, and illusive thing that is generally accomplished by a gradual, progressive inculcation of a receptive mind.
Once the presumption of undue influence has shifted, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to disprove undue influence by clear and convincing evidence that one of the foregoing criteria (from Paul’s Estate, 1962) is not established.