50 State Undue Influence Project: Iowa 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. Fifteenth up, Iowa.
Iowa Civil Jury Instruction 2700.4:
In order to overcome the presumption of lack of undue influence, the plaintiff must prove the following four elements:
At the time the will was made [testator] was susceptible to undue influence;
[Defendant] had the opportunity to exercise such influence and carry out the wrongful purpose;
[Defendant] was inclined to influence [testator] unduly for the purpose of getting an improper favor;
The result was clearly brought about by undue influence.
If the plaintiff has failed to prove one or more of these propositions, your verdict will be for the defendant. If plaintiff has proved all of these propositions, your verdict will be for the plaintiff.
Iowa Civil Jury Instruction 2700.5:
Undue influence means a person substitutes his or her intentions for those of the person making the will. The will then expresses the purpose and intent of the person exercising the influence, not those of the maker of the will. Undue influence must be present at the very time the will is signed and must be the controlling factor. The person charged with exercising undue influence need not be personally present when the will was being made or signed but the person’s influence must have been actively working at the time of the will was being made and signed.
Burkhalter v. Burkhalter, No. 12-0222, 2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 132 (Iowa Sup. Ct. Dec. 20, 2013):
The Supreme Court affirmed the elements of undue influence from ICJI 2700.4, and they added that the defendant must assume a position of dominance over the decedent’s decision to the extent that the decision to change the will was the defendant’s decision and not the decedent’s.
The Supreme Court also affirmed the definition of undue influence from ICJI 2700.5.
Undue influence must only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.