50 State Undue Influence Project: Massachusetts Undue Influence Expert Definitions

September 15, 2021 Max Wachtel

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. Twenty-first up, Massachusetts.

Bruno v. Bruno, 10 Mass. App. Court 918 (1980):

Undue influence sways the testator’s free will so that he or she acts contrary to his or her own wishes.

O’Rourke v. Hunter, 446 Mass. 814, 828 (2006), citing Tetrault v. Mahoney, et al., 425 Mass. 456, 464 (1997):

Elements of Undue influence are that:

An unnatural disposition has been made;
By a person susceptible to undue influence to the advantage of someone;
With an opportunity to exercise undue influence; and
Who in fact has used that opportunity to procure the contested disposition through improper means.

O’Rourke, 446 Mass. at 828, citing Neill v. Brackett, 234 Mass. 367, 370 (1920):

Mere suspicion, surmise or conjecture are not enough to warrant a finding of undue influence. There must be a solid foundation of established facts upon which to rest and inference of its existence.

Tetrault v. Mahoney, et al., 425 Mass. 456, 464 (1997), citing Corrigan v. O’Brien, 353 Mass. 241, 350 (1967):

The person alleging undue influence has the burden of proving undue influence.

Cleary v. Cleary, 427 Mass. 286, 290 (1998), citing Taricone v. Cummings, 340 Mass. 758, 762 (1960), Mirick v. Phelps, 297 Mass. 250, 252 (1937) and Hogan v. Whittemore, 297 Mass. 573, 578 (1932):

The person alleging undue influence must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Massachusetts Gen. Laws, Part II, Title II, Chapter 190B § 1-109 Standard of Proof:

In contested cases, the standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence.

Cleary v. Cleary, 427 Mass. 286, 290 (1998):

The burden of proving undue influence shifts when a person in a fiduciary relationship benefits from a will.

Rempelakis v. Russell, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 557, 563 (2006):

The burden of proving undue influence only shifts when the fiduciary has actually taken part in the questioned transaction.

UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Aliberti, 483 Mass. 396, 406 (2019):

People such as attorneys, trustees, and business partners have a fiduciary relationship as a matter of law.

A fiduciary relationship may also arise in other situations where one person puts their trust and confidence in, and is dependent upon, the other person's judgment, honesty, and integrity.