50 State Undue Influence Project: Connecticut 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. Seventh up, Connecticut.
The law is not entirely clear regarding the definition of undue influence Proposed Bill #772 in front of the General Assembly (2021) aims to correct this problem. In the meantime, here is what scant information is available regarding undue influence in Connecticut.
Direct quote from www.czepigalaw.com/claims-of-undue-influence.html:
It’s up to the complaining relative to prove that the Will was written under someone’s undue influence. To do that, generally the person must prove that:
The Will leaves property in a way that you wouldn’t expect under the circumstances—close family members were left out in favor of others, without an obvious explanation.
The Will-maker was particularly dependent on, or trusted, the person who exerted influence. (This is sometimes called a “confidential relationship” between them.)
Illness or frailty made the Will-maker susceptible to undue influence.
The influencer took advantage of the Will-maker and benefited from the Will by substituting his own will for that of the Will-maker.
Direct quote from www.trustsestateselderlawct.com/blog/what-constitutes-undue-influence-making-will:
It is long-settled law in the State of Connecticut, that in order to prove that someone unduly influenced someone else, you have to show four things:
There must be a person who is subject to being influenced;
There must have been some opportunity to exert that undue influence;
The person alleged to have done the influencing must have had some disposition – or motive – to exert the undue influence; and
There must be some result indicating the undue influence.
Connecticut Civil Jury Instruction 4.2-15 Defense – Undue Influence (CONTRACTS):
The defendant claims that the (contract, lease, etc.) is not enforceable because (he/she) executed it when (he/she) was subject to undue influence by _________.
Undue influence is the exercise of control over a person in an attempt to destroy (his/her) free will and cause (him/her) to do something different than (he/she) would do if left entirely to (his/her) own discretion and judgment.
The acts of control by over the defendant must be operative at the time the (contract, lease, etc.) is entered into.
In determining whether has exercised undue influence over the defendant you may consider the following factors:
1. The defendant's age and physical and mental condition;
2. Whether the defendant had independent or disinterested advice in the transaction;
3. Whether the defendant received adequate value under the (contract, lease, etc.);
4. The defendant's needs and distress.
The defendant must prove undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence.
Authority: Gengaro v. New Haven, 118 Conn. App. 642, 649-50 (2009); Jenks v. Jenks, 34 Conn. App. 462, 468 (1994), rev'd on different grounds, 232 Conn. 750 (1995); Pickman v. Pickman, 6 Conn. App. 271, 275-76 (1986).
Connecticut Civil Jury Instruction 3.8-2 Fiduciary Duty:
A fiduciary relationship is one in which one party, known as the principal, has a unique degree of trust and confidence in the other party, known as the fiduciary, who has superior knowledge, skill, or expertise, and who has a duty to act on behalf of the interests of the principal. You may find that a fiduciary responsibility existed only where one party to such relationship is unable to protect its interests fully or where one party has a high degree of control over the property or subject matter of another and the unprotected party has placed its trust and confidence in the other. No fiduciary relationship or responsibility arises between the parties where the parties were acting at arm's length, lacking a relationship of dominance and dependency, or were not engaged in a relationship of special trust and confidence.
Hills v. Hart, 88 Conn. 394, 396, 91 A. 257 (1914):
“It is the child’s privilege to anticipate some share of the parent’s estate. He may use all fair and honest methods to secure his parent’s confidence and obtain a share of his bounty. From such a relationship alone, the law will never presume confidence has been abused and undue influence exercised…The distinction between a legatee who is a child and one who is a stranger, being the religious adviser, business agent, attorney, or physician of the testatrix, is marked. The law casts the burden of showing the absence of undue influence upon the legatee holding such fiduciary relation; otherwise the burden of proving undue influence remains with the party alleging it.”
Bucchi v. Gleason, 137 Conn. 25, 30, 74 A.2d 212 (1950):
The burden of proving undue influence rests ordinarily with the one asserting it.
Cooper v. Cavallaro, 2 Conn. App. 622, 626, 481 A.2d 101 (1984):
“If . . . a confidential relationship is proved, then the burden of proving fair dealing or the burden of showing the absence of undue influence shifts to the defendant or the fiduciary, and that burden must be sustained by clear and convincing evidence…[If] such a fiduciary relationship was not established, the burden of proof…remained with the plaintiffs.”