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-fifth up, Ohio.

Ross v. Barker, 656 N.E.2d 363 (2d Dist. 1995):

Undue influence is “any improper or wrongful constraint, machination, or urgency of persuasion whereby the will of a person is overpowered and he is inducted to do or forebear an act which he would not do or would do if left to act freely.”

Young v. Bellamy (OH 2017):

The contestants of a will have the burden of proving undue influence (citing Krischbaum v. Dillon (1991).

To invalidate a will, undue influence “must so overpower and subjugate the mind of the testator as to destroy his free agency and make him express the will of another rather than his own, and the mere presence of influence is not sufficient,” (quoting West v. Henry, 184 N.E.2d 800 [1962].

Undue influence must be present or operative at the time of the execution of the will resulting in dispositions which the testator would not otherwise have made (citing West v. Henry, 184 N.E.2d 800 [1962]).

Proof of undue influence requires:

A susceptible testator;
Another’s opportunity to exert influence on the testator;
The fact of improper influence exerted or attempted; and
A result showing the effect of such influence (citing West v. Henry, 184 N.E.2d 800 [1962]).

In re: Guardianship of Worrall (1994):

When a gift is made between parties occupying a fiduciary, confidential or dependent relationship, a presumption arises that such gift is void.

Filo v. Filo (2021):

The presumption that a gift was the result of undue influence due to burden shifting is not conclusive and may be rebutted with proof that no deceit or undue influence was used, and that the donor acted voluntarily and with a full understanding of their act and its consequences.

A presumption is dispositive solely where neither party introduces substantial credible evidence regarding the fact to be presumed. Conversely, when either party introduces substantial credible evidence tending to prove a fact which would otherwise be presumed, the presumption either never arises or it disappears, (citing Ayers v. Woodard (1957).

Learn more