50 State Undue Influence Project: Arizona 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. Third up, Arizona.
Undue Influence:
This occurs in Arizona when an individual is active in procuring the execution of a will or that the decedent’s free will was overpowered so that the decedent makes their wishes and desires conform to the influencer’s (In re McCauley’s Estate, 101 Ariz. 8, 415 P.2d 431 (Ariz. Ct. App.1966)).
In addition, there are eight indicators that undue influence may or may not have occurred:
1. Whether the alleged influencer has made fraudulent representations to the person making the will;
2. Whether the execution of the will was the product of hasty action;
3. Whether the execution of the will was concealed from others;
4. Whether the person benefited by the will was active in securing its drafting and execution;
5. Whether the will as drawn was consistent or inconsistent with prior declarations and plannings of the person making the will;
6. Whether the will was reasonable rather than unnatural in view of the will-maker’s circumstances, attitudes, and family;
7. Whether the will-maker was a person susceptible to undue influence; and
8. Whether the will-maker and the beneficiary have been in a confidential relationship.
A.R.S. § 14-2712(B):
It is a rebuttable presumption that a person who executes a governing instrument is presumed to have capacity to execute the governing instrument and to have done so free from undue influence and duress.
A.R.S. § 14-2712(E):
A governing instrument is presumed to be the product of undue influence if either:
1. A person who had a confidential relationship to the creator of the governing instrument was active in procuring its creation and execution and is a principal beneficiary of the governing instrument.
2. The preparer of the governing instrument or the preparer's spouse or parents or the issue of the preparer's spouse or parents is a principal beneficiary of the governing instrument. This paragraph does not apply if the governing instrument was prepared for a person who is a grandparent of the preparer, the issue of a grandparent of the preparer or the respective spouses or former spouses of persons related to the preparer.
A.R.S. § 14-2712(G):
For the purposes of this section, determining if a person is a principal beneficiary of a governing instrument or the preparer of a governing instrument is a question of fact to be determined by the totality of the circumstances.
Typically, a confidential relationship is defined as a relationship of trust between two people where an individual has a responsibility to effectively manage the affairs of another individual due to their profession (such as an attorney or an accountant) or due to some position of legal authority they hold over the person (such as a Power of Attorney).