Proving **undue influence** in dementia-related will disputes is a complex and challenging legal process that requires demonstrating that the testator’s free will was overpowered by another person’s coercion or manipulation at the time the will was made. This involves showing that the person making the will (the testator) was vulnerable due to dementia or cognitive decline, and that the alleged influencer was in a position of power or trust and actively involved in procuring the will to benefit themselves or others unfairly.
To establish undue influence, lawyers typically focus on several key elements:
1. **Vulnerability of the Testator**
Dementia or Alzheimer’s disease alone does not automatically invalidate a will. What matters is the testator’s mental state at the exact moment the will was signed. Lawyers must prove that the testator was vulnerable—meaning their cognitive abilities were impaired enough to make them susceptible to manipulation. This vulnerability can be shown through medical records, expert testimony, and evidence of the testator’s mental decline. Even if the testator had moments of lucidity, the question is whether undue influence occurred during a time when their judgment was compromised.
2. **Existence of a Relationship of Trust or Authority**
The person accused of undue influence usually holds a position of trust or authority over the testator, such as a caregiver, family member, attorney, or close friend. This relationship creates an opportunity for the influencer to exert pressure. Lawyers must demonstrate that this relationship existed and that the influencer had access to the testator during the relevant period.
3. **Active Involvement in the Will’s Preparation or Execution**
It is important to show that the influencer was actively involved in the drafting, preparation, or signing of the will. This could include selecting the attorney, controlling who was present at the signing, or influencing the testator’s decisions about who should inherit. Evidence might come from witness statements, the circumstances surrounding the will’s creation, or unusual changes in the will’s provisions favoring the influencer.
4. **Coercion or Manipulation Overcoming Free Will**
The core of undue influence is that the testator’s free will was overcome. This means the influencer’s pressure was coercive, not merely persuasive or suggestive. Lawyers must prove that but for the undue influence, the testator would not have made the will as they did. This is a high evidential threshold because courts require clear proof that the testator was essentially a victim whose independent decision-making was overridden.
5. **Circumstantial Evidence and Patterns**
Direct evidence of undue influence is rare because the testator is often deceased and cannot testify. Therefore, lawyers rely heavily on circumstantial evidence, such as:
– Isolation of the testator from other family or friends
– Sudden or unexplained changes in the will’s beneficiaries
– The influencer’s suspicious behavior or financial gain
– Lack of independent advice or presence of neutral witnesses during signing
– Medical evidence showing cognitive decline coinciding with the will’s execution
6. **Testamentary Capacity vs. Undue Influence**
It is important to distinguish between lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. A person may have the mental capacity to make a will but still be subject to undue influence. Conversely, a will can be challenged on the grounds that the testator lacked capacity to understand the nature of the will. Lawyers often address both issues simultaneously, using medical and witness evidence to show the testator’s mental state and the presence of coercion.
7. **Role of the Court and Judges**
Probate judges carefully evaluate all evidence, including medical records, witness testimony, and the circumstances of the will’s execution. They apply legal benchmarks such as whether the testator understood the nature of the will, whether the will was properly executed, and whether undue influence was proven. Judges tend to be skeptical of undue influence claims without stron
