50 State Undue Influence Project: New Jersey 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. Thirtieth up, New Jersey.
Haynes v. First Nat’l State Bank of N.J. 87, N.J. 163, 87 N.J. at 176, 432 A.2d 890 (1981):
Undue influence is “mental, moral, or physical exertion which has destroyed the free agency of a testator by preventing the testator from following the dictates of his own mind and will and accepting instead the domination and influence of another.”
There are two elements necessary to give rise to a presumption of undue influence. First, there must be a ‘confidential relationship’ between the testator and a beneficiary where trust is reposed by reason of the testator’s weakness or dependence or where the parties occupied relations in which reliance is naturally inspired or in fact exists.”
Second, there must be the presence of suspicious circumstances which, in combination with such a confidential relationship, will shift the burden of proof to the proponent.
In re Will of Liebl, 260 N.J. Super. 519 (N.J. Super. 1992):
An unnatural will, that is, one which fails to provide for the natural objects of the testator’s bounty, is sometimes characterized as a strong or formidable circumstance or as raising a suspicion of undue influence. However, mere inequality of benefit among those of equal degree of consanguinity will not of itself justify an inference of undue influence. It must be borne in mind that it is clearly lawful for a testator to make an unjust will; and that it is lawful, too, for a testator to entertain a prejudice or a partiality.
Not all influence is undue influence. Persuasion or suggestions or the possession of influence and the opportunity to exert it, will not suffice. It must be said to destroy the testator’s free agency and to constrain him to what he would not otherwise have done in the disposition of his worldly assets. The coercion or domination exercised to influence the testator may be moral, physical, or mental, or all three, but the coercion exerted upon the testator’s mind must be of a degree sufficient to turn the testator from disposing of his property according to his own desires by the substitution of the will of another which he is unable to resist or overcome.
Each case of this nature must be governed by the particular facts and circumstances attending the execution of the will and the conduct of the parties who participated in order to determine if the coercion exerted was undue.
Gellert v. Livingston, 5 N.J. 65 (1950):
The burden of proving undue influence is upon the person asserting it and it must be clearly established.
In re: Blake’s Will, 21 N.J. 50, 57, 120 A.2d 745:
A will cannot be set aside merely because it is unequal or unjust. If capacity, formal execution, and volition appear, the will of even the most impious man must stand.”
Casternovia v. Casternovia, 82 N.J. Super. At 257, 197 A.2d 406:
A testator is not required to divide his or her estate equally among his or her children.
Benedict v. New York Trust Co., 48 N.J. Super. At 289, 137 A2.d 446:
A testator may even exclude one or more or all of the members of his own family.”