50 State Undue Influence Project: Arkansas 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. Fourth up, Arkansas.
Pyle v. Sayers, 344 Ark. 354 (2001):
“Regarding undue influence, the influence that the law condemns is not the legitimate influence that springs from natural affection, but the malign influence that results from fear, coercion or any other cause that deprives the testator of his free agency in the disposition of property.”
Bramlett v. Selman 597 S.W.2d 80 (1980), quoting Henry & Mullen v. Goodwin & Attaway, 266 Ark. 95, 583 S.W.2d 29 (1979):
"A confidential relation exists between two persons when one has gained the confidence of the other and purports to act or advise [with] the other's interest in mind."
Regarding burden of proof: The burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt “that the [testator] was not acting under undue influence shifted to appellee, as proponent of the will under which he was a clear beneficiary; once appellee overcame this presumption, the burden then shifted back to appellant as a contestant of the will to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the testator lacked the requisite mental capacity or that the testatrix was the victim of undue influence when the will was executed.”
“Whether disposition was natural is relevant inquiry. -- With respect to a will obtained by influence, it is not unlawful for a person, by honest intercession and persuasion, to procure a will in favor of himself or another person; whether the disposition was a natural one is a relevant inquiry; the influence of children over parents is legitimate so long as they do not extend a positive dictation and control over the mind of the testator.”
AMI 2434 Defense—Undue Influence (Contracts):
[Defendant] contends that [his][her][its] agreement to the contract was obtained by undue influence and has the burden of proving each of three essential propositions:
First, that [[plaintiff] and [defendant] were in a fiduciary relationship and [plaintiff] had an unfair advantage over [defendant] because of superior knowledge that [plaintiff] derived from that relationship] [[plaintiff] was in a position of overpowering influence over [defendant]] [[defendant](was in a position of weakness or dependence)(or) (justifiably placed trust in [plaintiff])];
Second, that [plaintiff] took unfair advantage of the relationship with [defendant]; and
Third, that [plaintiff]'s undue influence was such that [defendant]'s decision to enter into the contract was not his/her free and voluntary act.
[If you find from the evidence in this case that each of these propositions has been proved, then your verdict should be for [defendant]].