The Legal Framework: Arizona’s Five-Step Process
Arizona law provides a structured, five-step process for evaluating claims of undue influence. This process helps ensure courts do not rush to judgment and that all parties have the opportunity to present evidence.
- Proper Execution. The proponent of the estate plan must first show prima facie that the governing instrument was properly executed.
- Presumption of Capacity and Freedom from Undue Influence. Once proper execution is established, the court presumes the testator had capacity and was free from undue influence.
- Challenger’s Burden. If a party contests the instrument, they must prove its invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence. Allegations of incompetence or undue influence are judged under that standard.
- Taking Evidence on Undue Influence. The court must take evidence to determine whether the proponent of the governing instrument was the principal beneficiary or the preparer of the instrument. These are factual questions resolved by the totality of the circumstances by the court.
- Presumption Shift. Only if the evidence shows (A) a confidential relationship, (B) active procurement of the instrument’s creation and execution, and (C) principal-beneficiary status, does the presumption of undue influence shift to the proponent. If the presumption shifts, the proponent may then rebut it by a preponderance of the evidence. This statutory presumption is reflected in Arizona practice and codified principles.
Where Influence Becomes Undue
Influence is inherent in close relationships—spouses, children, advisors, and caregivers all exert persuasion. Influence becomes undue when the influencer is able to exercise power over the mind of the testator so that the testator’s desires conform to the influencer’s, thereby overmastering the testator’s volition. In short, undue influence results when the person signing the estate plan loses independent control over the disposition of his or her estate.
Undue influence is often exercised in secret, whereas ordinary influence is done openly. Because undue influence is commonly secret, direct evidence is rare; courts therefore examine circumstantial evidence in the aggregate. Common factors Arizona courts consider include:
- Whether the alleged influencer made fraudulent representations to the decedent.
- Whether the execution of the will or instrument was the product of hasty or hurried action.
- Whether execution of the instrument was concealed from others.
- Whether the person who benefited was active in securing the drafting and execution of the instrument.
- Whether the instrument as drawn is consistent with prior declarations, estate plans, or the testator’s known intentions.
- Whether the instrument appears reasonable rather than “unnatural” in view of the testator’s circumstances and family.
- Whether the testator was susceptible to undue influence due to age, illness, dependency, or diminished faculties.
- Whether a confidential relationship existed between the testator and the alleged influencer.
Courts accept a wide array of circumstantial evidence because direct proof is rarely available. No single factor is dispositive. The above requires carefully planned factual witnesses. However, it also requires experts to review and give analysis to medical records of the deceased.
Practical Implications
The legal standards for undue influence have real-world consequences:
- For Estate Planning: Attorneys should document independence—private meetings, clear instructions, and capacity evaluations. Video recordings and medical assessments can help defend against future claims.
- For Families: Transparency and communication reduce suspicion. Involving neutral professionals can prevent disputes.
- For Litigants: Challengers must present admissible evidence for all three elements—confidential relationship, active procurement, and principal-beneficiary status. Mere suspicion is not enough.
- For Advisors: Financial and legal professionals may be called to testify about capacity and independence. Detailed notes and ethical vigilance are critical.
Conclusion
Undue influence is a serious allegation requiring careful factual development and expert analysis (medical records, testimony about capacity and susceptibility, documentary evidence of procurement, and witness testimony about prior declarations). If you are accused of undue influence, retain counsel. If you suspect undue influence, consult counsel promptly to preserve witnesses and evidence.