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. Seventeenth up, Kentucky.

Nunn v. Williams, Ky. 254 S.W.2d 698, 700 (1953):

Undue influence is a level of persuasion which destroys the testator’s free will and replaces it with the desires of the influencer.

Influence from acts of kindness, appeals to feeling, or arguments addressed to the understanding of the testator is not “undue.”

When a contestant seeks to claim that undue influence was employed upon a testator, the burden is upon the contestant to demonstrate the existence and effect of the influence.

Merely demonstrating that the opportunity to exert undue influence is not sufficient to sustain the burden of proof.

Acton v. Acton, 283 S.W.3d 744, 747 (2008):

Undue influence must be of sufficient force to destroy the free agency of the grantor and to constrain him to do, against his will, that which he would otherwise have refused to do.

Proof of undue influence must amount to more than a bare showing that the opportunity for its imposition existed.

Creason v. Creason, Ky., 392 S.W.2d 69 (1965); Sloan v. Sloan, 303 Ky. 180, 197 S.W.2d 77, 80 (1946):

When undue influence and a mentally impaired testator are both alleged and the mental impairment of the testator is proven, the level of undue influence which must be shown is less than would normally be required since the testator is in a weakened state.

Palmer v. Richardson, 311 Ky. 190, 197, 223 S.W.2d 745, 749-50 (1949); McAtee v. McAtee, 297 Ky. 865, 874, 181 S.W.2d 401, 405 (1944); Kiefer's Ex'r v. Deibel, 292 Ky. 318, 166 S.W.2d 430, 433-34 (1942); 1 Ky. Prac.-Probate Practice & Procedure, § 555 (Merritt 2d ed.1984):

No presumption of undue influence arises from a bequest by a testator who has a confidential relationship with the beneficiary.

Hollon's Ex'r v. Graham, Ky., 280 S.W.2d 544 (1955); Gay v. Gay, 308 Ky. 539, 215 S.W.2d 92 (1948):

In those instances in which a will is grossly unreasonable and the principal beneficiary actively participated in its execution, a presumption of undue influence arises.

Belcher v. Somerville, Ky., 413 S.W.2d 620 (1967); Golladay v. Golladay, Ky., 287 S.W.2d 904, 906 (1955):

To determine whether a will reflects the wishes of the testator, the court must examine the indicia or badges of undue influence. Such badges include a physically weak and mentally impaired testator, a will which is unnatural in its provisions, a recently developed and comparatively short period of close relationship between the testator and principal beneficiary, participation by the principal beneficiary in the preparation of the will, possession of the will by the principal beneficiary after it was reduced to writing, efforts by the principal beneficiary to restrict contacts between the testator and the natural objects of his bounty, and absolute control of testator's business affairs.

Bye v. Mattingly, 975 S.W.2d 451 (1998):

In discerning whether influence on a given testator is “undue,” courts must examine both the nature and the extent of the influence.

The influence must be of a type which is inappropriate for it to be “undue.”

In addition to demonstrating that undue influence was exercised upon the testator, a contestant must also show influence prior to or during the execution of the will.

See v. See, Ky., 293 S.W.2d 255 (1956):

Undue influence must be of a level that vitiates the testator’s own free will so that the testator is disposing of her property in a manner that she would otherwise refuse to do.

Lucas v. Cannon, 76 Ky. 650 (1878):

Influence from threats, coercion and the like are improper and not permitted by the law.

Bennett v. Bennett, Ky., 455 S.W.2d 580 (1970):

Undue influence exercised after the execution of the will has no bearing whatsoever upon whether the testator disposed of her property according to her own wishes.

Bodine v. Bodine, 241 Ky. 706, 44 S.W.2d 840 (1932):

If the influence did not affect the testator, then such conduct is irrelevant.

Even if the influence occurred many years prior to the execution of the will, but operates upon the testator at the time of execution, it is improper and will render the will null and void.

Undue influence “must be such influence as obtains dominion over the mind of the testator to the extent that destroys every chance of the exercise of his own will on his part in the disposal of his estate.”