The question in this probate case is whether the trial evidence established that one of the beneficiary’s of decedent’s will had a confidential relationship with or otherwise exercised undue influence over decedent.
When a person who has a will dies, the will is presented to the Surrogates Court to be admitted to probate. For those so inclined, one way to invalidate a will is to establish that someone—typically a beneficiary—exerted undue influence over the decedent. Undue influence can be established directly, by showing that the beneficiary exercised a “moral coercion” over the decedent that “restrained independent action and destroyed free agency.” Or undue inference can be established indirectly, by showing that the beneficiary had a “confidential relationship” with the decedent. Proof of a confidential relationship creates a presumption of undue influence that can be rebutted by proof that the will was executed free from undue influence.
In this case, Sophie Kotsones died with a will. In the probate proceeding that followed, one of Sophie’s children (James) challenged the will, alleging that another one of Sophie’s children (Ellen) and a grandchild (Alex, Ellen’s son) exerted undue influence over Sophie before she died. The dispute was tried to Surrogate’s Court. The trial evidence showed that Ellen and Alex held a position of trust with decedent, and that Ellen assisted decedent with her finances and was named decedent’s power of attorney. The evidence also showed, however, that decedent “actively and personally” managed her real estate and estate planning affairs.
Surrogate’s Court found undue influence and invalidated the will, but the Fourth Department reversed. The court concluded that, although Alex and Ellen had a relationship of trust with Sophie, that relationship was not of “such an unequal or controlling nature” as to amount to a confidential relationship giving rise to a presumption of undue influence. Nor was there actual undue influence, the court explained, since evidence established that Sophie made the choices reflected in her will based on her own personal motives and not because her free will was overwhelmed.
The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.