50 State Undue Influence Project: Indiana 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. Fourteenth up, Indiana.
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 858 N.E.2d 1032, 1037 (2006):
Undue influence: “The exercise of sufficient control over the person, the validity of whose act is brought into question, to destroy his free agency and constrain him to do what he would not have done if such control had not been exercised.”
A power of attorney creates a fiduciary relationship.
IMCJI 3911 Undue Influence—Definition:
Undue influence is influence that overpowers the mind of the person making the will, destroying the person’s freedom to decide at the time the will is written.
It must be directly related to making the will and of such force that the will in reality represents the intentions of another person.
Citizens State Bank v. Kelly, 162 N.E.2d 322, 324 (1959):
Influence one person acquires over another merely by virtue of services rendered or kindly treatment does not constitute undue influence.
Burgin v. Dries, 163 N.E.2d 609, 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 1960):
Weakness of intellect, old age, physical feebleness, illiteracy, and weak mindedness are “facts which make a fertile bed for undue influence.”
Morgan v. Mull, 248 N.E.2d 176, 178 (1969):
Evidence that the testator was never allowed to talk alone with any of his children is evidence of undue influence.
Arnold v. Parry, 363 N.E.2d 1055 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977):
What constitutes undue influence depends on the circumstances in a particular case.
Gast v. Hall, 858 N.E.2d 154, 165 (2006):
Undue influence can be proven by circumstantial evidence.
Lasater v. House, 841 N.E.2d 553 (2006):
A testator’s statements when they signed the will are not admissible to prove undue influence.
In re: Rhoades, 993 N.E.2d 291 (2013):
The following may be considered when determining if undue influence occurred:
The character of the beneficiary;
And interest or motive the beneficiary might have to unduly influence the testator; and
The facts and surrounding circumstances that might have given the beneficiary an opportunity to exercise such influence.
IMCJI 3337 Undue Influence—Finding of Relationship (CONTRACTS):
The law presumes that trust and confidence exists between people in certain relationships, including legal, moral, social, domestic, or personal relationships.
Trust and confidence can influence decisions people make. Sometimes people use trust and confidence to unduly influence decisions. The law voids transactions that are the result of undue influence.
If [defendant] proves by the greater weight of the evidence that:
A relationship of confidence and trust existed between the parties;
Because of that relationship, the parties did not deal on equal terms, because [plaintiff]:
a. Had superior knowledge of the matters involved in the transaction, or
b. Was in a position to exercise excessive influence over [defendant]; and
The result gave an unfair advantage to [plaintiff]
Then you must assume that the transaction resulted from undue influence and is void.
Indiana Code § 291-1-3(13) Fiduciary:
"Fiduciary" includes a:
(A) personal representative;
(B) guardian;
(C) conservator;
(D) trustee; and
(E) person designated in a protective order to act on behalf of a protected person.
Indiana Code § 29-1-7-20 Contest of wills; burden of proof:
In a suit:
(1) objecting to the probate of a will under section 16 of this chapter; or
(2) testing the validity of a will after probate under section 17 of this chapter;
the burden of proof is upon the contestor.
Nichols v. Estate of Tyler, 910 N.E.2d 221, 228 (2009):
When transactions occur between a dominant and subordinate party which benefit the dominant party, the law imposes a presumption that the transaction was the result of undue influence exerted by the dominant party. The dominant party must demonstrate to the trial court by clear and convincing evidence that the transaction in question was made at arm’s length.
Estate of Compton, 919 N.E.2d 1181 (2010):
“The benefiting attorney in fact is freed from the presumption of undue influence so long as the power of attorney is unused in the questioned transaction.”
Indiana Code § 30-5-9-2:
(a) An attorney in fact who acts with due care for the benefit of the principal is not liable or limited only because the attorney in fact:
(1) also benefits from the act;
(2) has individual or conflicting interests in relation to the property, care, or affairs of the principal; or
(3) acts in a different manner with respect to the principal's and the attorney in fact's individual interests.
(b) A gift, bequest, transfer, or transaction is not presumed to be valid or invalid if the gift, bequest, transfer, or transaction:
(1) is:
(A) made by the principal taking action; and
(B) not made by an attorney in fact acting for the principal under a power of attorney; and
(2) benefits the principal's attorney in fact.