Blinn v. Carlman - 159 So. 3d 390 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

Rule:

When a will is challenged on the grounds of undue influence, the influence must amount to over persuasion, duress, force, coercion, or artful or fraudulent contrivances to such an extent that there is a destruction of free agency and willpower of the testator. The doctrine of undue influence is based on the theory that the testator is induced by various means to execute an instrument which although his in outward form, is in reality not his will, but the will of another person which is substituted for the testator. Undue influence is not usually exercised openly in the presence of others so that it may be directly proved, hence it may be proved by indirect evidence of facts and circumstances from which it may be inferred.

Facts:

On April 2, 2008, decedent Richard Blinn executed a will which completely transformed Richard’s prior estate plan. In a 2006 will executed eight months after Richard met appellant/wife, Richard devised the entire estate outright to his daughter, Patty, with his granddaughter as the alternate beneficiary. The 2006 will was consistent with an earlier will which provided for Richard's family. Prior to meeting appellant, Richard financially assisted his children. However, the 2008 will devised the entire estate to appellant, with an existing charity created by Richard as the alternate beneficiary. Four months after the execution of the 2008 will, the charity was dissolved and all of its assets were distributed to a New Hampshire beneficiary. The trial court invalidated the 2008 will based on undue influence, and concluding that the will was executed under most suspicious circumstances. The trial court found that two lawyers were involved, a referring lawyer and the drafting lawyer; the drafting lawyer acknowledged that he was uncomfortable with the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the 2008 will. Appellant challenged the decision. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, should the 2008 will be invalidated on the basis of undue influence? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment, noting a set of non-exhaustive factors for courts to consider on the issue of undue influence or active procurement: (a) presence of the beneficiary at the execution of the will; (b) presence of the beneficiary on those occasions when the testator expressed a desire to make a will; (c) recommendation by the beneficiary of an attorney to draw the will; (d) knowledge of the contents of the will by the beneficiary prior to execution; (e) giving of instructions on preparation of the will by the beneficiary to the attorney drawing the will; (f) securing of witnesses to the will by the beneficiary; and (g) safekeeping of the will by the beneficiary subsequent to execution. In this case, undue influence was apparent when the appellant, on her own, sent the drafting lawyer doctor letters attesting to the decedent's mental capacity, suggesting she was trying to overcome concerns about the circumstances surrounding the 2008 will. Moreover, the 2008 will transformed the decedent's prior estate plan and devised the decedent's estate to the wife. The appellant also preyed on the decedent's mental infirmity to alienate the decedent from his family. Furthermore, at the time of the decedent’s hospitalization, the appellant requested estate planning documents and a durable power of attorney in her favor for the decedent and said she would have the documents executed.