Critical factors that were identified by the court with respect to undue influence and
fraud are as follows. At the time of signing the will the “nurses notes indicated that he had mild
difficulty with appropriate decision making.” He was also given painkillers shortly after to help
with 10 out of 10 pain. His doctor indicated that three weeks after he signed the will that he had
dementia, however that same doctor had contradicting notes that stated there was no diagnosis
of dementia (Kubasek et al., 2019). In order to be guilty of undue influence in a case where like
this one the testator was testified by witnesses and nurses to be alert and strong the facts
constituting undue influence have to be much stronger. As stated in Dynamic Business Law
“Testamentary capacity means that the testator must be able to retain in his mind, without
prompting, the extent and condition of his property, to comprehend to whom he is giving it, and
relations of those entitled to his bounty (Kubasek et al., 2019). However, anytime a party or
parties procure a will for a testator, and they are the beneficiaries there will be suspicions and
they will then have a burden of proving this was not the case.
However, having affection for those who care for you is normal. If anyone of us had a few
family members that cared for us while the rest of our family members never even visited us, it would
be reasonable to see why we would leave all of our assets to those family members who cared for us.
Having this type of affection and relationship does not prove undue influence. Undue influence is “the
malign influence which results from fear, coercion, or any other cause that deprives the testator of his
free agency in the disposition of his property (Kubasek et al., 2019). The fact that Cora and Darrell
had been caring for Ralph and witnesses stated that there didn’t appear to be anything wrong
with his mind, all point to him being of sound mind.
The question of how far the courts should go to protect the elderly and infirm from undue
influence and fraud is a very difficult one to answer. On one hand we want to protect the more
venerable, but on the other hand this may give courts more power over an individual and their assets
than their family has. It is no question that as people we take up certain causes and can at times be
blinded by those causes. In the case where it is clear that a testator has sufficient mental capacity and
there is not any erroneous evidence that there was undue influence then the courts need to step back
and let the families take care of things. Courts should be limited to clear cases and should allow a case
manager or other professional to investigate the claims of undue influence and fraud.
References
Kubasek,N.K.,MNeilBrowne,Dhooge,L.J.,Herron,D.J.,&
Barkacs,L.L.(2019).Dynamic business law.Mcgraw-HillEducation.
