50 State Undue Influence Project: Maryland 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. Twentieth up, Maryland.
Nalley v. Nalley, 253 Md. 197, 251 A.2d 849 (1969):
“Undue influence which will avoid a will must be unlawful on account of the manner and motive of its exertion, and must be exerted to such a degree as to amount to force or coercion, so that free agency of the testator is destroyed.”
Moore v. Smith, 582 A.2d 1237, 321 Md. 347 (1990):
“Undue influence amounts to physical or moral coercion that forces a testator to follow another’s judgement instead of his own,” (citing Page on Wills § 15.2 at 712 (1965)).
“Although we have not laid down a test to determine the existence of undue influence with mathematical accuracy, we have recognized in many appellate cases several elements characteristic of its presence, including:
The benefactor and beneficiary are involved in a relationship of confidence and trust;
The will contains substantial benefit to the beneficiary;
The beneficiary caused or assisted in effective execution of will;
There was an opportunity to exert influence;
The will contains an unnatural disposition;
The bequests constitute a change from a former will; and
The testator was highly susceptible to the undue influence.”
Treffinger v. Sterling, 269 Md. 356, 305 A.2d 829, 832 (1973):
“Among the factors to be examined in determining whether [a confidential relationship] has come into being are the patient’s advanced age, his physical debility, his mental feebleness, and his dependence on a child. None of these factors is necessarily conclusive and each should be given that weight which is warranted by the circumstances then present.”
It is only when, as a result of debility or feebleness, a parent becomes dependent on his child for aid and counsel, that a confidential relationship is re-established.”
Sellers v. Qualls, 110 A.2d 73 (1954):
The burden of proof shifts to the proponent of the will when there is a confidential relationship between
Physical infirmity may reduce the ability of a testator to resist any attempted undue influence.
The fact that a person charged with using undue influence in the obtention of a will is not himself a beneficiary is not controlling on the issue if the will was the result of undue influence exercised by him.
Mills v. Glenn, 152 Md. 464, 468, 136 A. 831 (1927):
Even if direct testimony establishing undue influence is not presented, undue influence can still be proven using circumstantial evidence.
Goertz v. McNally, 185 Md. 170, 175, 44 A.2d 446 (1945):
When a portion of a will is found to have been caused by undue influence, other portions of the will may still be valid, if they can be separated from the invalid parts of the will.
Conrad v. Gamble, 183 Md.App. 539, 553, 962 A.2d 1007, 1016-7 (2008):
If a confidential relationship exists, the burden of proof shifts to the beneficiary for inter vivos gifts.
Upman v. Clark, 359 Md. 32, 753 A.2d 4 (2000):
A confidential relationship is just one of several factors that need to be evaluated when determining undue influence for testamentary gifts. The existence of a confidential relationship does not shift the burden of proof to the beneficiary in testamentary contests.