Understanding the Four Elements of Undue Influence in California Trust Disputes

When it comes to trust disputes involving financial elder abuse, one of the most common legal claims is that of “undue influence.” Undue influence is “excessive persuasion that causes another person to act or refrain from acting by overcoming that person’s free will and results in inequity.” (Cal. Prob. Code, § 86; Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.70.) 

Proving undue influence in California involves demonstrating that the influence exerted on the person who created the trust was such that it overpowered their free will and resulted in a trust document that does not reflect their true intentions. Although undue influence does not need to have been the sole cause of what caused the person to create the trust document, it must have been of such nature, weight, and force that the trust document would not have been created without it. 

Courts consider a number of factors when determining whether undue influence was exerted on a person creating a trust. 

Elements of Undue Influence 

There are generally four elements that courts will use to evaluate whether undue influence was used. (See Keading v. Keading, 60 Cal. App. 5th 1115, 1125, 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d 338 (2021), reh'g denied (Mar. 9, 2021), review denied (June 9, 2021).) 

1. Vulnerability of the Victim

The first element is 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.” (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.70, subd. (a)(1).) 

2. Apparent Authority of the Influencer

The second element is the apparent authority of the influencer, or in other words, their disposition to exert influence over the trustor. “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.” (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.70, subd. (a)(2).) A person with apparent authority would most commonly be someone with power or trust with the trustor, such as a caregiver, close relative, or financial advisor.

3. Actions or Tactics Used by the Influencer

The third element is the actions or tactics used by the influencer to gain control over the trustor’s decisions and the opportunities that the influencer had to exert undue influence. (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.70, subd. (a)(3).) Examples of this would be the influencer controlling the trustor’s medications, interactions with others, access to information, or sleep. (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.70, subd. (a)(3)(A).) The influencer may also use affection, intimidation, or coercion as a means of control. (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.70, subd. (a)(3)(B).) Other evidence can include the “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.” (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.70, subd. (a)(3)(C).) 

4. Equity of the Result

Lastly, the result of the trust document is examined to determine whether there is an indication of undue influence. Typically, when the outcome of the trust document is inequitable or unjust, or the influencer receives a disproportionately large benefit, this may indicate undue influence. “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.” (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.70, subd. (a)(4).) 

It is important to present cumulative evidence of all these elements, since one element taken alone will likely not be enough to support a finding of undue influence. Most importantly, “[e]vidence of an inequitable result, without more, is not sufficient to prove undue influence.” (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.70, subd. (b).) 

Proving Undue Influence

Undue influence can be difficult to prove, but circumstantial evidence may be used to show it. 

Documentary evidence is also critical to proving undue influence. This would include medical records to show the trustor’s mental and physical condition; statements from friends, family, and professionals who interacted with the trustor; financial records that could indicate control by the influencer or financial dependence; and any communications that depict the nature of the relationship between the trustor and the influencer and any undue pressure. 

Steps in the Legal Process

The first step in proving undue influence is to challenge the trust by filing a petition in probate court. Next, during the discovery phase, both sides gather and exchange evidence supporting their claims. Before the possibility of a trial, both parties will often attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation or settlement, but if no settlement is reached, the case will proceed to trial. 

Proving undue influence is complex and requires a detailed examination of the circumstances surrounding the trust creation. Ensuring thorough preparation and gathering substantial evidence are critical to building a strong case. 

It is important to act promptly, as the statute of limitations for contesting a trust begins to run quickly. If you suspect undue influence in a trust, contact a lawyer experienced in probate to help you navigate these complexities.