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-sixth up, Oklahoma.

OK. Stat. § 15-61: Undue influence defined (contracts):

Undue influence consists:

In the use, by one in whom a confidence is reposed by another, or who holds a real or apparent authority over him, of such confidence or authority for the purpose of obtaining an unfair advantage over him.
In taking an unfair advantage of another’s weakness of mind; or
In taking a grossly oppressive and unfair advantage of another’s necessities or distress.

In the Matter of the Estate of Holcomb, 63.P3d, 9 (2002):

Upon a finding of the trial court:

That a confidential relationship existed between the will maker and another, stronger party; and
That the stronger party actively assisted in the preparation of procurement of the will,

then a rebuttal presumption of undue influence at once arises that shifts to the will proponent the burden of producing evidence.

The will proponents successful rebuttal of the presumption restores the case to the procedural posture it would have had if the presumption had never been operative.

Undue influence can be proven with circumstantial evidence.

The Court should take into account the association of the parties, the opportunity for undue influence afforded the person who is especially favored by the terms of the will, and the effect of the will upon those persons whom we would naturally expect to be the recipients of the will maker’s bounty.

Fipps v. Stidham, 74 Okl, 473 (1935):

Confidential relationship: Whenever trust and confidence are placed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another.

Matter of Estate of Maheras, 897 P.2d 268 (1995):

In the absence of mitigating circumstances, undue influence is present if:

A confidential relationship existed between the will’s maker and another party; and
That other party assisted in the preparation or procurement of the will.

If a will is found to have been affected by undue influence, the district court may declare it void in whole or in part.

The burden of persuasion in a will contest based on undue influence rests on the contestant.

Factors to be applied in the two prong-test to determine if undue influence has occurred:

Whether the person charged with undue influence was not a natural object of the maker’s bounty;
Whether the stronger person was a trusted or confidential advisor or agent of the will’s maker;
Whether he/she was present and/or active in the procurement or preparation of the will;
Whether the will’s maker was of advanced age or impaired faculties;
Whether independent and disinterested advice regarding the testamentary disposition was given to its maker.

A will’s admission can be denied if there was a confidential relationship, the influencer participated in the making of the will, and the influencer overbore the maker’s free agency, unless there is evidence that either:

The confidential relationship had been severed before the critical events in question; or
Independent advice was given to the will-maker.

A person who is not a beneficiary under a will’s terms may be regarded as legally capable of overbearing the will-maker’s free agency.

When a decedent’s spiritual advisor procures a will that benefits his/her church, a court may find the will-maker’s free agency overborne by the advisor’s act if the law’s criteria for establishing undue influence are met.

Learn more