50 State Undue Influence Project: Missouri 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. Twenty-fifth up, Missouri.
M. A. I. 15.03 Undue Influence:
The phrase “undue influence” as used in these instructions means such influence as destroys the free choice of the person making the will/codicil/contested part of the will.
Estate of Gross, 840 S.W.2d 253, 257 (MO.App.E.D. 1992):
A presumption of undue influence arises when substantial evidence shows:
A confidential and fiduciary relationship;
That the fiduciary obtained a benefit; and
Some additional evidence from which there is an inference of undue influence.
Undue influence occurs when a party in a position of trust induces the other, by “active conduct,” to provide a substantial benefit through the transfer of property.
A confidential relationship exists when one thus relies upon and trusts another in regard to handling property and business affairs, thereby creating some fiduciary obligation. The relationship exists regardless of whether their interactions are technically fiduciary or merely informal. The evidence need not be overwhelming.
The Plaintiff does not need to show that the beneficiary was present at the transaction or will signing.
Rhoades v. Chambers, 759 S.W.2d 398, 410-411(Mo.App. S.D. 1988):
When there is not a confidential and fiduciary relationship, the elements of undue influence are as follows:
A substantial benefit to the influence;
Some additional evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable inference of undue influence.
Factors that may be relevant in an undue influence analysis:
The mental and physical condition of the decedent;
Opportunity of the defendant to undue influence;
Unnatural dispositions of the decedent’s property;
A sudden change in dispositions from a prior document;
The active involvement of the defendant in securing the attorney to prepare the documents or in securing execution of the documents;
Hostile feelings of the defendant toward the otherwise expected recipients;
Derogatory remarks of the defendant toward the plaintiffs;
Discouraging visits of plaintiffs by defendant;
Statements against interest by the defendant
Steller v. Steller, 401 S.W.2d 473, 478 (Mo. 1966):
The Plaintiff does not need to show by specific evidence that the Defendant’s influence was being exerted at the precise time of the execution of the instrument.
Salisbury v. Gardner, 515 S.W.2d 881, 886 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974):
It is sufficient that undue influence be shown by circumstantial evidence.
Strype v. Lewis, 180 S.W.2d 688, 692-93 (Mo. 1944):
The standard of proof in undue influence cases is by clear and convincing evidence.
Ruestman v. Ruestman, 111 S.W.3d 464, 478 (Mo.App.S.D. 2003):
Motive and opportunity alone are not enough to establish undue influence.
Hammonds v. Hammonds, 297 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Mo. 1957); Pike v. Pike, 609 S.W. 2d 397 (Mo.banc 1980); Hodges v. Hodges, 692 S.W.2d 361, 376 (Mo.App. S.D. 1985):
A spouse may be guilty of undue influence on his or her spouse.