50 State Undue Influence Project: Alabama 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. First up, Alabama.
Undue Influence:
“Undue influence is influence exerted at any time upon the testator which causes him to make a disposition of his property that is contrary to his own free will and desires” (Bolan v. Bolan 611 So. 2d 1051 (1993)).
A presumption of undue influence arises when the following conditions are met (Parker v. Marshall, 549 So. 2d 463, 465 (Ala.1989); Clifton v. Clifton, supra, 529 So. 2d at 983);
Pirtle v. Tucker, 960 So. 2d 620, 628 (Ala. 2006)):
1. There is a confidential relationship between a favored beneficiary and the testator;
2. The influence of the beneficiary is dominant and controlling in that relationship; and
3. There is undue activity by the beneficiary in procuring the execution of the will.
Confidential Relationship:
“A confidential relation exist[s] when two parties stand in such a relation to each other, that trust and confidence is justly placed by one person in the other and the other person possesses the influence which naturally grows out of that trust and confidence,” (Bolan v. Bolan 611 So. 2d 1051 (1993)).
Favored Beneficiary:
"[o]ne who, in the circumstances of the particular case, has been favored over others having equal claim to the testator's bounty. An unnatural discrimination, leading to a natural inference that advantage has been taken by one in position so to do; and shown to have been busy in getting such will executed," (Cook v. Morton, 241 Ala. 188, 192, 1 So. 2d 890, 892 (1941)).
Dominant and Controlling:
“The fact that a beneficiary controls the personal, business, and household affairs of a testator is evidence of a dominant and controlling influence," (Hayes v. Apperson, 826 So.2d at 804).
Undue Activity:
"The primary beneficiary [is] active in and about the execution and preparation of said will, such as the initiation of the proceedings for the preparation of the will, or participation in such preparation, employing the draftsman, selecting the witness, excluding persons from the [testator] at or about the time of the execution of the will, concealing the making of the will after it was made, and the like. . . . '," (Hayes, 826 So.2d at 803 (quoting Reed v. Shipp, 293 Ala. 632, 636, 308 So. 2d 705, 708 (1975)).