|
Trusts are powerful tools for individuals to manage and distribute their assets, ensuring their wishes are carried out even after their passing and avoiding the unnecessary costs and delays associated with probate. But what happens when an individual's trust terms do not actually reflect that individual's true intentions because of the undue influence of another person?
In California, as in many other states, the creation and execution of a trust must adhere to strict legal standards. One critical aspect underlying trust law is the prohibition against undue influence, a legal concept referring to the improper influence and overwhelming pressure put on a person that overcomes that person's own free will. This concept plays a significant role in legal actions brought to challenge trusts and trust amendments. In this article, we will explore California's laws surrounding undue influence in trust contests, providing a comprehensive understanding of how the laws offer aggrieved parties legal recourse to right the wrongs of those who may bully, deceive, and otherwise wrongfully push their way into a person's estate plan.
Understanding Undue Influence
Undue influence refers to a situation where one person exerts excessive pressure or manipulation on another person to influence their decisions, often related to their financial or estate planning matters. Under California law, it is defined as "excessive persuasion that causes another person to act or refrain from acting by overcoming that person's free will and results in inequity." Wel. & Inst. Code § 15610.70; Prob. Code § 86. When it comes to trust contests in California, undue influence is a critical issue because it can undermine the intent and purpose of the trustor (the person creating the trust).
California law recognizes that trustors should have the freedom to make their own decisions about how their assets will be distributed without external pressures or manipulations. To address this concern, the state has implemented various laws to safeguard the integrity of trusts against undue influence. Under California Probate Code § 17200(b)(3) and related case law, a trustee or beneficiary (including beneficiaries previously included in a trust) may petition the court to determine the validity of a trust or a trust provision. Undue influence constitutes grounds for invalidation of all or a portion of a trust.
For a court to determine whether a trust or trust amendment was produced by undue influence, under California Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.70, all of the following factors are required to be considered:
(1) The vulnerability of the victim. Evidence of vulnerability may include, but is not limited to, incapacity, illness, disability, injury, age, education, impaired cognitive function, emotional distress, isolation, or dependency, and whether the influencer knew or should have known of the alleged victim's vulnerability.
(2) The influencer's apparent authority. Evidence of apparent authority may include, but is not limited to, status as a fiduciary, family member, care provider, health care professional, legal professional, spiritual adviser, expert, or other qualification.
(3) The actions or tactics used by the influencer. Evidence of actions or tactics used may include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
- (A) Controlling necessaries of life, medication, the victim's interactions with others, access to information, or sleep.
- (B) Use of affection, intimidation, or coercion.
- (C) Initiation of changes in personal or property rights, use of haste or secrecy in effecting those changes, effecting changes at inappropriate times and places, and claims of expertise in effecting changes.
(4) The equity of the result. Evidence of the equity of the result may include, but is not limited to, the economic consequences to the victim, any divergence from the victim's prior intent or course of conduct or dealing, the relationship of the value conveyed to the value of any services or consideration received or the appropriateness of the change in light of the length and nature of the relationship.
Who has the Burden of Proof?
Clear and Convincing Evidence: To successfully contest a trust based on undue influence, the contestant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that undue influence indeed occurred. This higher burden of proof ensures that allegations of undue influence are thoroughly scrutinized and substantiated.
Shifting the Burden of Proof: In certain circumstances, however, the burden of proof can be shifted to the person benefitting from the trust or amendment in question so that the person who may have committed the undue influence will be the one required to prove they did not do so. They must then meet the high standard of clear and convincing evidence.
The following facts must be demonstrated to shift the burden of proof to the accused individual:
- a confidential (close, trusting) relationship between the individual alleged to have committed the undue influence and the person who signed the trust or amendment,
- the individual's active participation in the procurement of the contested trust document, and
- an undue benefit conferred on the individual by the trust or trust amendment.
Shifting by Statutory Presumption: California Probate Code Section 21380 et seq. further establishes certain statutory presumptions regarding undue influence. If certain factors are present, the law presumes undue influence, shifting the burden of proof to the person benefiting from the trust. For example, the law automatically shifts the burden of proof for all trusts and amendments in which gifts are made to the person who drafted it, in which gifts are made to a care custodian of a dependent adult. These presumptions further apply to employees, relatives, and cohabitants of these persons, with certain exceptions.
Challenges and Complexities
While California's legal framework provides strong protection against undue influence in trust contests, proving undue influence can be challenging. It often involves complex legal and factual issues, such as establishing the existence of a confidential relationship or demonstrating that the trustor's decision was the result of coercion or manipulation.
Furthermore, disputes over trusts can be emotionally charged, pitting family members against each other in court battles. Balancing the protection of vulnerable individuals from undue influence with the respect for a trustor's autonomy is a delicate matter.
While proving undue influence may seem challenging, it is important to note that it can be established through circumstantial evidence, a powerful legal tool.
Understanding Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect evidence, relies on inferences to establish a fact. Unlike direct evidence, which directly proves a fact, circumstantial evidence relies on the logical deduction of facts based on surrounding circumstances and events. In cases of undue influence, where there may not be direct witnesses to the manipulation, circumstantial evidence becomes essential in uncovering the truth.
California, like many other jurisdictions, recognizes the significance of circumstantial evidence in proving undue influence in trust and estate disputes. Courts in California are well aware that undue influence often occurs behind closed doors, making it challenging to provide direct evidence of the manipulation.
Some Factors that May be Used to Prove Undue Influence with Circumstantial Evidence
The Relationship: Demonstrating that there was a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the influencer and the victim is crucial. This can be established through circumstantial evidence by showing a trusted family or professional relationship or a pattern of close involvement in financial matters or decision-making.
Isolation: Undue influence often thrives in isolation. If the alleged influencer isolated the victim from friends and family or controlled their communication and access to others, this can be a powerful piece of circumstantial evidence.
Sudden Changes: Abrupt and unexplained changes in estate planning documents or financial transactions can raise suspicions. When circumstantial evidence reveals such changes coinciding with the alleged influencer's involvement, it strengthens the case.
Inconsistent Wishes: If the trustor's decisions and wishes appear to be inconsistent with their lifelong values, priorities, or relationships, this inconsistency can be seen as circumstantial evidence of undue influence.
Dependency: Demonstrating that the victim was heavily dependent on the alleged influencer, whether financially, emotionally, or physically, can provide compelling circumstantial evidence.
Witness Testimonies: While not direct evidence of the undue influence itself, testimonies from friends, family members, or experts who can testify to the victim's altered behavior or demeanor can be instrumental in building a circumstantial case.
If you find yourself involved in a trust contest in California, whether as a beneficiary, trustee, or contestant, seeking legal counsel from an experienced attorney who specializes in estate and trust litigation is crucial. We can help you navigate the complexities of undue influence allegations and ensure that your rights and interests are protected in accordance with California's trust contest laws.
| 
