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-third up, Minnesota.

In re Wilson’s Estate, 27 N.W.2d 429, 432 (Minn. 1947):

Undue influence is “influence of such a degree exerted upon the testator by another that it destroys or overcomes the testator’s free agency and substitutes the will of the person exercising the influence for that of the testator.”

Undue influence may depend on the level of influence of the alleged influencer when taking into consideration the testator’s physical and mental condition, the person exercising the influence, and the time, place, and surroundings circumstances.

Factors for evaluating undue influence:

An opportunity to exercise influence;
A confidential relationship between the testator and the person purportedly exercising the influence;
Active participation in the preparation of the will by the person purportedly exercising undue influence;
Disinheritance of those who would likely have been named in the will;
Singularity of the will or trust’s provisions; and
The use of influence or persuasion to induce the testator to make the will or trust in question.

In re Estate of: Alice I. Engman A16-0805 Filed January 30, 2017:

Undue influence does not need to be proven by all factors under the precedent of In re: Wilson’s Estate. “We read Wilson’s Estate to say that there are various ways in which a party might prove undue influence, depending on the facts of a particular case, and that a party seeking to prove undue influence may choose to introduce, among other things, any of the forms of circumstantial evidence identified in that opinion.”

In re Estate of Novotny, 385 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986):

To invalidate a will on the grounds of undue influence, the influence must have been “so dominant and controlling of the testator’s mind that, in making the will he ceased to act of his own free volition and became a mere puppet of the wielder of the influence.”

In re Estate of Torgersen, 711 N.W.2d 545, 550-51 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006):

Conjecture and suspicion are not enough to prove undue influence.

In re Marsden’s Estate, 217 Minn. 1, 10, 13 N.W.2d 765, 770 (1944):

“Evidence which raises merely a suspicion and shows no more than a motive for exerting and an opportunity to exert undue influence is insufficient proof thereof, though coupled with proof of inequality in the terms of the will.”

The existence of a confidential relationship may suggest undue influence.

If a confidential relationship exists between relatives, this fact tends to negate, rather than prove, undue influence.

79 Am. Jur. 2d, Wills § 396:

Advanced age, physical weakness, and diminished capacity might indicate a person is susceptible to undue influence.

Agner v. Bourn, 281 Minn. 385, 392, 161 N.W.2d 813, 818 (1968):

Undue influence can be proven with direct or circumstantial evidence.

In re Estate of Peterson, 283 Minn. 446, 449, 168 N.W.2d 502, 504 (1969):

Undue influence is often shown by circumstantial evidence.

In re Pundt’s Estate, 157 N.W.2d 839, 841 (Minn. 1968):

Undue influence must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Norlander v. Cronk, 221 N.W.2d 108, 111-12 (1974):

The opportunity to unduly influence a testator is present when there is a confidential relationship between the influencer and the testator (a close relationship where the testator relies on advice from the influencer).

In re Olson’s Estate, 35 N.W.2d 439, 446 (Minn. 1948):

In estate plans, when there are changes from former testamentary decisions where those who would have been likely named in the will have been named in previous versions of the estate plan, there is strong support for undue influence.

There is strong support for undue influence “where the effect of the change is to give the beneficiary charged with exercising undue influence a ‘larger’ share of the testator’s estate than he otherwise would have received.”

MN Statutes § 524.1-201 General Definitions:

(18) “Fiduciary” includes personal representative, guardian, conservator, and trustee.

MN Statutes § 524.3-405 Formal Testacy Proceedings; Contested Cases; Testimony of Attesting Witnesses:

(a) If evidence concerning execution of an attested will which is not self-proved is necessary in contested cases, the testimony of at least one of the attesting witnesses, if within the state competent and able to testify, is required. Due execution of a will may be proved by other evidence, including an affidavit of an attesting witness. An attestation clause that is signed by the attesting witnesses raises a rebuttable presumption that the events recited in the clause occurred.

(b) If the will is self-proved, compliance with signature requirements for execution is conclusively presumed and other requirements of execution are presumed subject to rebuttal without the testimony of any witness upon filing the will and the acknowledgment and affidavits annexed or attached thereto, unless there is proof of fraud or forgery affecting the acknowledgment or affidavit.

MN Statutes § 524.3-407 Formal Testacy Proceedings; Burdens in Contests Cases:

In contested cases, petitioners who seek to establish intestacy have the burden of establishing prima facie proof of death, venue and heirship. Proponents of a will have the burden of establishing prima facie proof of due execution in all cases, and, if they are also petitioners, prima facie proof of death and venue. Contestants of a will have the burden of establishing lack of testamentary intent or capacity, undue influence, fraud, duress, mistake or revocation. Parties have the ultimate burden of persuasion as to matters with respect to which they have the initial burden of proof. If a will is opposed by the petition for probate of a later will revoking the former, it shall be determined first whether the later will is entitled to probate, and if a will is opposed by a petition for a declaration of intestacy, it shall be determined first whether the will is entitled to probate.

MN Statutes § 524.3-410 Formal Testacy Proceedings; Partial Intestacy:

If it becomes evident in the court of a formal testacy proceeding that, though one or more instruments are entitled to be probated, the decedent’s estate is or may be partially intestate, the court shall enter an order to that effect.