50 State Undue Influence Project: Alaska 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. Second up, Alaska.
CPJI 26.10A:
The Contestant claims the will is invalid because the Maker signed it when [he] [she] was under the undue influence of [name of alleged influencer].
You must decide if it is more likely true than not true that [name of alleged influencer] so influenced the Maker that [he] [she] made a will that [he] [she] would not have made if left to the free exercise of [his] [her] own judgment and wishes. Mere general influence is not undue influence.
In determining the issue of undue influence, you should consider all of the surrounding circumstances, including such factors as:
(1) the Maker's age and mental condition;
(2) whether the relationship between them was one in which the Maker put special confidence and trust in [name of undue influencer];
(3) whether [name of alleged influencer] was the dominant party in the relationship;
(4) [name of alleged influencer]'s opportunity to exercise undue influence;
(5) whether [name of alleged influencer] participated in the drafting and signing of the will;
(6) whether the will seemed to have been executed for [name of alleged influencer]'s benefit or profit; and
(7) whether [name of alleged influencer] had possession of the will after its execution.
The list of factors in this instruction is not exclusive. Eliminate any factors which do not apply (List is from Paskvan v. Mesich, 455 P.2d 229, 233 (Alaska 1969)).
If you decide that it is more likely true than not true that there was undue influence, you must return a verdict for the Contestant. Otherwise, you must find that there was no undue influence and return a verdict for the Proponent.
In re Kraft's Estate, 374 P.2d 413, 417 (Alaska 1962):
Undue influence exists when "the testator was virtually compelled to make a will which he would not have made had he been left to the free exercise of his own judgment and wishes."
CPJI 26.10B (Presumption of Undue Influence):
The Contestant claims the will is invalid because the Maker signed it when [he] [she] was under the undue influence of [name of alleged influencer].
You must decide whether it is more likely true than not true that:
(1) [name of alleged influencer] was the principal or sole beneficiary of the will; and
(2) [name of alleged influencer] and the Maker had a confidential relationship; and
(3) [name of alleged influencer] participated in the drafting of the will.
A "confidential relationship" existed between [name of alleged influencer] and [name of testator] if [name of testator] placed special trust and confidence in the integrity and fidelity of [name of alleged influencer] so that the [name of alleged influencer] was, in fairness and good conscience, bound to act in good faith and with due regard to the interests of [name of testator]. Examples of some relations that are confidential include that of attorney and client, doctor and patient, and a person holding a power of attorney over someone else's property.
[If you decide that all three of these things are more likely true than not true, then the law requires that you also accept as true that the Maker made [his] [her] will under the undue influence of [name of alleged influencer] and you must return a verdict for the Contestant.]
[If you decide that all three of these things are more likely true than not true, then you may infer that the Maker made [his] [her] will under the undue influence of [name of alleged influencer]. However, you are not required to do so.]