50 State Undue Influence Project: Georgia 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. Tenth up, Georgia.
Trotman v. Forrester, 279 Ga. 844, 621 S.E.2d 724 (2005):
Evidence showing that a testator has a weakened mental state is relevant to the issue of undue influence, as the influence necessary to dominate a weak mind is less than that necessary to dominate a strong one (quoting Sullivan v. Sullivan, 273 Ga. 133, 539 S.E.2d 120; Murchison v. Smith, 270, Ga. 171-172, 508 S.E.2d 641).
A factor that may support a finding of undue influence is evidence of a confidential relationship between the testatrix and the party alleged to have influenced the testatrix (quoting Skelton v. Skelton, 251 Ga. 631, 634, 308 S.E.2d 838 (1983))
Undue Influence may be shown by a wide range of evidence, as such influence can seldom be shown except by circumstantial evidence (quoting Sullivan v. Sullivan, 273 Ga. 130, 132, 539 S.E.2d 120(2000).
Amerson v. Pahl, 292 Ga. 79, S.E.2d 399 (Ga., 2012):
Undue Influence:
“To invalidate a will, undue influence must amount to deception or coercion that destroys the testator’s free agency,” (quoting Prine v. Blanton, 290 Ga., S.E.2d 600 (2012), quoting Sims v. Sims, 265 Ga. 55, 452 S.E.2d 761(1995)).
Direct Quotation from www.atlantalawfirm.net/invalidating-a-will-because-of-undue-influence/:
Caveats on the ground that the will was obtained by undue influence can be supported by evidence that the person who influenced the testator:
Unreasonably benefits from the terms of the will;
Had a confidential or fiduciary relationship with the testator;
Was capable of exerting power or control over a submissive testator;
Isolated the testator from his or her family and friends; and/or
Took an active part in the preparation of the will.
Prine v. Blanton, 290 Ga., S.E.2d 600 (2012):
“To invalidate a will, undue influence must amount to deception or coercion that destroys the testator’s free agency,” (quoting Bohler v. Hicks, 120 Ga. 800, 809 (6) (48 SE 306) (1904)).
“The improper influence must operate on the testator’s mind at the time the will is executed,” (quoting Boland v. Aycock, 191 Ga. 327, 329 (12 SE2d 319) (1940)).
The testator’s choice of naming one relative instead of another as the favored beneficiary is an insufficient reason to deny probate of the will,” (quoting Cornelius v. Crosby, 243 Ga. 26, 28 (5) (252 SE2d 455) (1979)).
Smith v. Liney, 280 Ga. 600, 631 S.E.2nd 648 (2006):
Although the alleged influencer had the opportunity to unduly influence her mother and she benefitted substantially from the will, those facts alone were not enough to prove undue influence.
Holland v. Holland, 277 Ga. 792, 793-794, 596 S.E.2d 123 (2004):
A confidential relationship may be found to exist when the evidence shows that a party was capable of exerting power of leadership or a controlling influence over a submissive testator.