More than 30 years ago, the Florida Supreme Court outlined a list of factors called the Carpenter factors that can be used to show if someone influenced a person to create a will or trust in their favor. This changed the way probate and trust cases are handled because it made it easier for someone contesting a will or trust to shift the burden of proof to the person accused of influencing the document. The issue of undue influence usually comes up after the person who made the will or trust has passed away, so one of the key witnesses is no longer around. The person who benefited from the document will defend it, but often the witnesses who were there when it was signed don’t know much about what happened before. The lawyer who prepared the document can’t be expected to testify about whether the person was influenced by someone else when they signed it. If someone close to the person making a will benefits a lot from it and was involved in getting the will made and signed, it might be assumed that they influenced the person making the will. This means that the person who benefits has to prove they didn’t influence the will. However, there are also cases where children helping their parents with their wills might not be seen as influencing them. In the Carter case, the court found that there was no proof that James unduly influenced his mother to change her will. Even though James helped his mother with her will and it was changed to benefit his brother, the court said that it wasn’t undue influence. The court said that James and his brother were just being good sons by helping their mother with her affairs. In a case called Jacobs v. Vaillancourt, the court said that if a spouse is accused of influencing the other spouse’s will, it doesn’t automatically mean there was wrongdoing. The court also said that a son-in-law acting in the best interest of his wife’s mother isn’t automatically doing something wrong either. They said that family members have a natural influence over each other and that doesn’t necessarily mean anything bad is happening. In a court case, two of the deceased person’s children sued their sister, who was in charge of their mom’s estate, claiming she had unduly influenced their mom to change her will. The court didn’t believe them because the sister had a really close relationship with their mom and had helped her with legal stuff. They said that when family members help each other out, it’s not automatically considered undue influence. It’s unfair to assume that just because someone is close to their family member, they’re trying to take advantage of them. Other evidence can still show if someone is being taken advantage of, but we shouldn’t assume it just because they’re family. Should unmarried couples who have lived together for a long time be protected against being taken advantage of in a legal dispute? Should stepchildren be treated the same as biological or adopted children when it comes to inheriting from a parent? These questions should be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific details of each relationship. This approach allows judges to consider the length and nature of the relationship before making a decision. We should encourage close family members to help their parents or guardians without worrying about being treated unfairly in a lawsuit. The Carpenter case sets a rule that people who take advantage of someone for their own financial gain should be assumed to have used unfair influence, unless they can prove otherwise. However, this rule doesn’t apply to spouses or partners involved in each other’s estate plan, or to children who have a history of taking care of their aging parents. A judge will decide in each case whether the rule applies or if there are exceptions. This column is from the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section of The Florida Bar.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/where-the-presumption-of-undue-influence-should-not-apply-consider-the-dutiful-son-and-the-dutiful-daughter-exceptions/
Leave a Reply