Undue Influence
By Richard R. Hammar, J.D., LL.M., CPA
© Copyright 1991, 1998 by Church Law & Tax Report. All rights reserved. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Church Law & Tax Report, PO Box 1098, Matthews, NC 28106. Reference Code: m29
If the recipient of a gift unduly influenced the donor who made the gift, the donor or his representative may have the gift canceled. This rule applies both to direct gifts made during one's lifetime and to gifts contained in documents (such as wills) which take effect at the donor's death. Undue influence is more than persuasion or suggestion. It connotes total dominion and control over the mind of another. As one court has noted, “undue influence is that influence which, by force, coercion or overpersuasion destroys the free agency” of another.1
Undue influence generally must be inferred from the circumstances surrounding a gift, since it seldom can be proven directly. Circumstances commonly considered in determining whether a donor was unduly influenced in the making of a gift include (1) whether the gift was the product of hasty action; (2) whether the gift was concealed from others; (3) whether the person or organization benefited by the gift was active in securing it; (4) whether the gift was consistent or inconsistent with prior declarations and planning of the donor; (5) whether the gift was reasonable rather than unnatural in view of the donor's circumstances, attitudes, and family; (6) the donor's age, physical condition, and mental health; (7) whether a confidential relationship existed between the donor and the recipient of the gift; and (8) whether the donor had independent advice.2
It is generally held that the burden of proving undue influence is upon the one seeking to invalidate the gift and that undue influence must be proven by “clear and convincing” or “clear and satisfactory” evidence. Proof by a mere preponderance of the evidence will not suffice.3 However, many courts hold that a “presumption” of undue influence arises whenever a gift is made by a church member directly to his or her minister. Even so, this presumption is rebuttable.
To illustrate, in one case a 70--year--old invalid dying from cancer was visited several times a week by a pastor of her church. Three days before her death, the pastor persuaded her to execute a will leaving most of her property to him. The pastor's personal attorney was called upon to draft the instrument. Two days later, the pastor attempted to have the donor give him additional property by a deed of gift, but by this time the donor was in a stupor and was physically unable to sign her name. She died a day later. The gift to the pastor was challenged on the ground that it was the product of undue influence. The court concluded that undue influence was established by the age and feeble mental and physical condition of the donor, the involvement of the pastor in procuring the gift to himself, the confidential “clergyman--parishioner” relationship that existed between the pastor and the donor, and the lack of any independent advice.4
In another case, a gift by a 79--year--old single woman to her church was invalidated because the evidence demonstrated that the church's minister visited the donor daily and preyed upon her fear that other churches in the community might exceed her own in size and prosperity.5 Similarly, gifts to an Episcopal rector and his church were invalidated on the basis of undue influence since the donor was a 76--year--old woman suffering from arteriosclerosis, senility, and severe loss of memory.6
An Arkansas court invalidated a will that left all of a decedent's assets to a cult leader. The leader had convinced the decedent that he had supernatural powers, that he could transmigrate, did not have to eat or perform other bodily functions, and had the power to heal. He refrained from displaying his powers openly, however, because it would cause people to “focus on his miracles rather than upon his teachings.” The leader also warned the decedent that “bad things” would happen to her if she did not give more and more of her money to him. She began giving up to 75 percent of her earnings as a nurse to the leader, executed a will leaving her entire estate to him, and assigned several life insurance policies to him. After her untimely death in an accident, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of her minor child seeking to invalidate the will and life insurance beneficiary designations on the basis of undue influence. The lawsuit alleged that the decedent had been so unduly influenced by the leader that her actions were not the product of her own free will and therefore should be invalidated. The court agreed that the decedent had been unduly influenced by the cult leader, and accordingly invalidated the transfer of assets to him. It noted that the leader was a very skillful manipulator of emotionally immature and dependent persons, and that he “virtually enslaved” the decedent through manipulation of her mind and emotions.7
A federal appeals court ruled that an heiress could revoke a substantial contribution she had made to a church because she had been the victim of undue influence. The heiress to a large family fortune began attending a church in Massachusetts. Over the next few years, she became intimately involved with the church and many of its related ministries, and made three large contributions to the church. The first contribution (stock in the family business worth $1 million) was made because of her belief that the gift would “cure” the severe headaches experienced by the pastor's wife. After making the gift, the pastor allegedly informed the donor that his wife had been “cured” when in fact she continued to suffer from migraine headaches. Because of this event, the donor came to believe that large gifts could “affect events on earth.”
Later, when advised by church officials that a particular missionary was being kept a prisoner in Rumania and that “they're probably pulling out his fingernails by now,” the donor informed the pastor that she intended to make a $5 million gift to the church to bring about the missionary's release. In fact, church officials knew that the missionary had been released several days earlier, but this information was not disclosed to the donor. She was simply told that her gift had “worked a miracle.” The donor also made a $500,000 gift to the church in an attempt to resolve her marital difficulties. Eventually, the donor was taken by concerned family members to religious “deprogrammers” who persuaded her to terminate her association with the church. She then sued the church, demanding a return of her gifts on the ground that they had all been the product of “undue influence” and accordingly were void. The federal appeals court, applying Massachusetts law, observed that gifts to charity can be revoked on the basis of undue influence, and that undue influence involves three elements: (1) a person who is susceptible to being influenced, (2) deception or improper influence is exerted, and (3) submission to the “overmastering effect of such unlawful conduct.”
The court stressed that “it generally takes less to establish undue influence when a confidential relation exists between the parties.” Such a confidential relationship, the court concluded, existed between the donor and the pastor. The court found the following factors to be relevant in determining whether undue influence occurred: (1) the donor's age, and mental and physical health; (2) “disproportionate gifts made under unusual circumstances”; (3) inexperience with financial matters; (4) attempts by the recipient of the funds to “isolate the donor from her former friends and relatives”; (5) whether or not the donor acted with or without “independent and disinterested advice.” The court rejected the donor's claim that the $1 million gift had been the result of undue influence, since general statements by the pastor and other church officials that large gifts would “do great works” were “too amorphous to show undue influence.” However, the court found that the $5 million and $500,000 gifts were the result of undue influence and ordered them canceled. The court observed that all three elements of undue influence were present. First, the donor was susceptible to undue influence. Second, the pastor had knowingly deceived her into believing that the missionary was in great danger when he knew that the missionary had been released from Rumania several days earlier. Third, the donor clearly “submitted” to the pastor's misrepresentation.
The court also noted that had the donor been told that her $1 million gift had not cured the headaches of the pastor's wife, she “might not have made the second gift at all.” Further, the $5 million and $500,000 gifts were not based on any independent advice, and had been concealed from family members (because the donor had been advised by church officials that her family was “evil and was not to be trusted”). Finally, the court rejected the church's claim that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom “shields the solicitation of funds by a religious organization from attack since the gifts are sacrosanct.” The court quoted with approval the United States Supreme Court's admonition that “nothing we have said is intended even remotely to imply that under the cloak of religion persons may, with impunity, commit frauds upon the public.”
The court noted that the guaranty of religious freedom “does not allow purely secular statements of fact to be shielded from legal action merely because they are made by officials of a religious organization.” It concluded that “those who run [the church] may freely exercise their religion, but they cannot use the cloak of religion to exert undue influence of a non--religious nature with impunity. The $5 million gift and $500,000 gift might have had their seeds in the religious beliefs of [the church] but they were both nurtured and brought to fruition by misstatements and distortions of facts that had no basis either in the religious tenets of [the church] or [its] religious beliefs.”8
In the great majority of cases, however, gifts to churches have been upheld despite the claim that they were the product of undue influence. Thus, in one case, a court in upholding a gift to a church observed:
If a determined old lady, who knows her own mind and without consulting her children, carries out her own wishes in that regard and buys an annuity contract, can have her wishes held for naught and the contract set aside . . . then no such annuity can stand in this state against such attack. The entire evidence discloses that the conduct of the officer of this church or organization was above reproach, for, even after she sought them out and asked for the investment, they did not press the matter, but gave her every opportunity to seek other advice and change her desires.9
Similarly, a gift of property by an 82--year--old single woman to a Catholic church to assure the saying of masses for deceased members of her family was upheld despite the claims of her nearest relatives that such was not her real intention and that she had been unduly influenced by the church without her family's knowledge or consent. In upholding the validity of the gift, the court noted the following factors: (1) the donor's desire to make provision for the saying of masses for her family preceded the date of the gift; (2) the donor's will, which had been executed prior to the gift to the church, left nothing to surviving family members; (3) the donor did not conceal the gift; (4) there was no evidence that the donor was in a weakened condition of mind or body at the time of the gift; and (5) she reaffirmed the gift in subsequent letters, one of which was written five years after the day of the gift.10
Other courts have rejected a charge of undue influence where a donor, though 90 years of age, was well--educated and predisposed to making a gift to her church;11 where an elderly donor had long considered making a gift to his church and was not close to his parish priest;12 where an elderly donor was mentally competent and experienced in business affairs, and was the first to suggest making a gift to his church;13 where a donor's lifetime gifts to her church and minister left her with ample assets for her own support, were not the result of active solicitation by her minister, and were acknowledged with satisfaction several times by the donor during her life;14 where a donor frequently gave to her church, was capable of making independent business decisions, and was not close to any of her relative;15 and where an 84--year--old single woman left the bulk of her estate to a minister who was a friend and not the minister of the church she attended.16
The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the validity of a will that left a large portion of an elderly widow's estate to a Baptist university. The decedent's surviving heirs argued that the will was invalid since the decedent lacked mental capacity at the time the will was executed. To support their claim, the heirs alleged that at the time she executed her will the decedent was in a state of grief over the loss of her husband and was manifesting eccentric behavior. In addition, the heirs argued that the decedent had never expressed an interest in the university during her lifetime. Such evidence, concluded the court, fell far short of that required to establish mental incapacity.17
A South Carolina court rejected a claim that an elderly decedent's will, which left the bulk of her estate to the Lutheran Church in America (LCA), was the product of “undue influence” and accordingly invalid. The decedent executed her first will at the age of 78. This will left 10 percent of her estate to her local church, 40 percent to various relatives, and 50 percent to another charity. At the age of 87, the decedent began changing her will. The fourth and final amendment of her will, executed when she was 88 years old, placed the bulk of her estate in a charitable trust, the income from which was distributed to the LCA. The final will was challenged by a beneficiary whose share of the estate had been reduced. The beneficiary argued that the final will was invalid since it had been the product of undue influence.
The court acknowledged that undue influence can invalidate a will, but it denied that the decedent's final will had been the result of undue influence. The court observed that undue influence must be proven by the person challenging a will, and that it consists of “influence amounting to coercion destroying free agency on the part of the [decedent]” so that the will was the result of “force and fear.” The court, in rejecting the allegation of undue influence, observed that the final version of the decedent's will had been executed “when she was in reasonably good health, and during her latter years [when] she continued to work in her yard, talk with her neighbors, do some cooking and go to a grocery store . . . .” In short, she still possessed sufficient independence and health to support the conclusion that “she was the ultimate decision maker.” Accordingly, the allegation of undue influence was rejected and the validity of the will upheld.18
A Louisiana appeals court upheld the validity of a will that left a decedent's estate to her minister. The decedent died in 1986 at the age of 86. As early as 1979, she began exhibiting behavior which led her doctor to conclude that she was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. By 1981, she had trouble recognizing close friends and relatives, her conversations became repetitive, and she became prone to emotional outbursts and temper tantrums. In 1979, a minister began transporting the decedent to and from church. By 1982, she offered to give her property to him (she made similar offers to others who did favors for her). In 1983, the minister took the decedent to an attorney's office in order to have a will drafted leaving him her estate. The attorney had known the decedent for many years, and had drafted a previous will for her in 1975. He questioned her as to whether she understood that she was revoking her previous will and was leaving her entire estate to the minister. At one point he stated, “this [minister] is not a member of your family, do you understand that you have a right to give your possessions to whomever you wish, but you're under no threat or anything?” The decedent became upset with the attorney's questions, and the will was prepared and signed.
Following the decedent's death in 1986, the minister introduced the will to probate. A relative of the decedent challenged the will on the following grounds: (1) the decedent lacked the capacity to make a will (in 1983) because of mental incompetence; and (2) a state law invalidated will provisions leaving a gift to a minister if the will was drafted during the decedent's “last illness” and the minister “attended” the decedent during that illness. The state appeals court ruled in favor of the minister. It observed that a will may successfully be challenged on the basis of mental incompetence only if “clear and convincing evidence” of incompetency exists. While acknowledging that some evidence of incompetency existed in this case, it failed to amount to “clear and convincing evidence.” The court was especially impressed with the fact that the decedent's attorney had testified that he felt that she was competent at the time she executed her will in 1983. The decedent certainly was becoming more forgetful by 1983, the court acknowledged, but this fact alone did not constitute clear and convincing evidence of incompetency.
Similarly, the court rejected the claim that state law prohibited the gift to the minister, since the will had not been executed during the decedent's “last illness.” Between 1983 and shortly before her death in 1986, the decedent was not chronically ill. However, had the decedent “made the will during her final hospitalization a different result might obtain.” This case reveals the difficulty that is typically encountered in attempting to invalidate a will on the basis of mental incompetency or “undue influence.” The “clear and convincing evidence” standard is recognized by many states, and often bars relatives from successfully challenging a will leaving all or part of an estate to a minister (or more commonly to a church or other charity).19 If a gift to a church is not found to be the product of undue influence, it will not be invalidated on the ground that the donor disinherited his children.20
One who would challenge a gift made to a church on the basis of undue influence must not delay seeking redress for an unreasonable length of time, since unreasonable delay will bar any recovery.21
In summary, a minister should refrain from soliciting gifts to himself from aged, or mentally infirm church members, and should be very cautious in soliciting gifts for the church. However, gifts to a church will be valid if the minister merely suggests and does not actively solicit a gift, the donor is mentally competent, the donor was predisposed to conveying the gift, and the donor had independent advice and assistance in implementing the gift. Many wills leaving substantial portions of estates to churches and other charities have been challenged by “disinherited heirs” on the basis of undue influence. Persons bringing such lawsuits often recognize that they have a weak case, but they sue anyway, hoping that the church will quickly “settle” with them in order to avoid the potential “adverse publicity” associated with such lawsuits. After all, what church wants to be accused publicly of coercing elderly members into making gifts to the church?
If your church receives a gift under a will that is challenged on the basis of undue influence, be sure to bear in mind a couple of considerations. First, undue influence usually is very difficult to prove, particularly when the decedent was in reasonably good mental and physical health at the time the will was executed. Second, in many states, undue influence must be proven by “clear and convincing evidence”—a more difficult burden of proof than the ordinary “preponderance of the evidence” standard. A church that becomes aware that an elderly or infirm person is considering leaving a portion of his or her estate to the church can reduce the possibility of undue influence even further by ensuring that the person obtains the independent counsel of an attorney in drafting the will or trust. Finally, church leaders should recognize that they have a moral obligation to assist in implementing the estate plans of deceased members so long as they are satisfied that no improper influence was exercised. If a former member in fact intended that a portion of his or her estate be distributed to the church, and church leaders too quickly succumb to threats of attorneys hired by disgruntled family members, then they have violated a sacred trust.
For related information on this topic see the following articles: