Coercion as Defense to Will or Power of Attorney
One of the major cases dealing with undue influence was Haynes v. First National State Bank of New Jersey, 87 N.J. 163, 75-76 (1981). Here the Supreme Court held that the burden of proof establishing undue influence shifts to the proponent when a will benefits a person who stood in a confidential relationship to the decedent and there are suspicious circumstances which need explanation. The suspicious circumstances need only be slight. Id. at 176. Moreover, when the evidence is almost entirely in the possession of one party and the evidence points to the proponent as asserting undue influence, a clear and convincing standard may be applied rather than the normal burden of proof of preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 183.
Furthermore, the Haynes analysis was extended to situations in which there is a transfer of property where the beneficiary of the property and an attorney is on one side and the donor on the other. See Oachs v. Stanton, 280 N.J. Super. 478, 483 (App. Div. 1995).
The court in Oachs determined that under circumstances such as these the donee bears the burden of proof to establish the validity of the gift, even in situations in which the donee did not dominate the decedent¹s will. Id. at 485. This rule was established to protect a donor from making a decision induced by a confidential relationship the donee possesses with the donor. Id. Again, the burden is a clear and convincing standard. Id.
The Supreme Court in Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20, 31 (1998), stated that when a donor makes a gift to a donee that he/she is dependent upon, a presumption arises that the donor did not understand the consequences of his/her act. In these situations the donee must demonstrate that the donor had disinterested and competent counsel. Id. Likewise, undue influence is conclusive, when a mentally or physically weakened donor makes a gift without advice or a means of support, to a donee upon whom he/she depends. Id.
A confidential relationship can be found to exist when one is certain that the parties dealt on unequal terms. In re Stroming¹s Will, 12 N.J. Super. 217, 224 (1951). The appropriate inquiry is if a confidential relationship existed, did the parties deal on terms and conditions of equality? Blake v. Brennan, 1 N.J. Super. 446, 453 (1948). Suspicious circumstances are not required to create a presumption of undue influence with regard to inter vivos gifts and the presumption of undue influence is more easily raised in an inter vivos transfer. See Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 31; Bronson v. Bronson, 218 N.J. Super. 389, 394 (App. Div. 1987).
Generally, an adult is presumed to be competent to make an inter vivos gift. See Conners v. Murphy, 100 N.J. Eq. 280, 282 (E. & A. 1926); Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20, 29 (1988). However, when a party alleges undue influence with regard to an inter vivos gift, the contesting party must prove undue influence existed or that a presumption of undue influence should arise. Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 30. A presumption of undue influence arises when a confidential relationship exists between the donor and donee or where the contestant proves the donee dominated the Will of the donor. Id.; see also Seylaz v. Bennett, 5 N.J. 168, 172 (1950); In re Dodge, 50 N.J. 192, 227 (1967); Mott v. Mott, 49 N.J. Eq. 192, 198 (Ch. 1891); Oachs v. Stanton, 280 N.J. Super. 478 (App. Div. 1995) (holding that where a confidential relationship existed and that the donor did not rely upon the donee, a shifting of the burden was still appropriate); In re Neuman¹s Estate, 133 N.J. Eq. 532, 534-35 (E. & A. 1943) (stating in a will context ³Such burden does not shift merely because of the existence of a confidential relationship, without more, as in the matter of gifts inter vivos.²) The In re Dodge court explained why a presumption of undue influence arises in a confidential relationship and stated: ³In the application of this rule it is not necessary that the donee occupy such a dominant position toward the donor as to create an inference that the donor was unable to assert his will in opposition to that of the donee.² In Re Dodge, 50 N.J. 192 (1967). The court referenced a much earlier case in explaining the rule¹s application: "Its purpose is not so much to afford protection to the donor against the consequences of undue influence exercised over him by the donee, as it is to afford him protection against the consequences voluntary action on his part induced by the existence of the relationship between them, the effect of which upon his own interests he may only partially understand or appreciate." In re Dodge, supra, 50 N.J. at 228 citing Slack v. Rees, 66 N.J. Eq. 447, 449 (E. & A. 1904). In sum, once it is proven that a confidential relationship exists the burden shifts to the donee to show by clear and convincing evidence that no undue influence was used. Although the case law indicates suspicious circumstances need not be shown the donee must show all was fair, open and voluntary, no deception was practiced and that the transaction was well understood. Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 31; see also In re Dodge, supra, 50 N.J. at 227; Seylaz, supra, 5 N.J. at 173. Furthermore, confidential relationships arise in all types of relationships ³whether legal, natural or conventional in their origin, in which confidence is naturally inspired, or, in fact, reasonably exists.² In re Fulper¹s Estate, 99 N.J. Eq. 292, 314 (Prerog. Ct. 1926); see Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 34. It appears confidential relationships exist in all cases in which: "The relations between the [contracting] parties appear to be of such a character as to render it certain that they do not deal on terms of equality, but that either on the one side from superior knowledge of the matter derived from a fiduciary relation, or from over-mastering influence; or on the other from weakness, dependence or trust justifiably reposed, unfair advantage is rendered probable." Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 34, quoting In re Fulper, supra, 99 N.J. Eq. at 314; see also In re Dodge, supra, 50 N.J. at 228.
In determining whether the Defendant was the dominant person in the relationship there is no clear cut rule and instead the court must look to the particular circumstances of the matter. In re Fulper, supra, 99 N.J. Eq. at 315; Giacobbi v. Anselmi, 18 N.J. Super. 600, 616 (Ch. Div. 1952). In Fulper the court determined that a confidential relationship existed in a father-son relationship in which the father was advanced in age, weak and physically depended upon the son. Moreover, since the father sought the son¹s assistance on business matters, lived with the son during the winter months and gave the son joint and several power over his checking account an actual repose of trust and confidence in the son was demonstrated. In re Fulper, supra, 99 N.J. Eq. at 318.
In the Giacobbi case, supra, a confidential relationship was determined to exist between a mother and daughter, even though the mother did not suffer from mental or physical infirmity. There the mother was found to be alert, active, and somewhat independent. However, she turned to the daughter for small issues and problems when they occurred. Giacobbi, supra, 18 N.J. Super. at 617.
Therefore, the burden can shift to Defendant to prove by clear and convincing evidence the transaction was not unduly influenced. Furthermore, where a donor makes an ³improvident² gift to the donee upon whom she depends that strips the donor of all or virtually all their assets, as here, a presumption arises that the donor did not understand the consequences of their act. Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 31, citing Vanderbach v. Vollinger, 1 N.J. 481, 489 (1949). Under those circumstances the donee must establish that the donor had the advice of competent and disinterested counsel. Id. citing Vanderback, supra, 1 N.J .at 488-89. Similarly, when a mentally or physically weakened donor makes a gift to a donee whom the donor is dependent upon, without advice, and the gift leaves the donee without adequate means of support, a conclusive presumption of undue influence arises. Id. citing Seylaz, supra, 5 N.J. at 173. However, when a donor is not dependent upon the donee ³independent advice is not a prerequisite to the validity of an improvident gift even though the relationship between the parties is one of trust and confidence.² Id. citing Seylaz, supra, 5 N.J. at 173.
Although suspicious circumstances are not required to be established in an inter vivos transfer for a presumption of undue influence to exist, thereby shifting the burden of proof, Plaintiff has raised the issue. Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 30.
Article of the Week
Meet with an experienced
Attorney to handle your important legal needs.
Please call the office to schedule a confidential "in Office"
Attorneys are not permitted to provide legal advice by email.
Vercammen is the Managing Attorney at Kenneth Vercammen & Associates
in Edison, NJ. He is a New Jersey trial attorney has devoted a substantial
portion of his professional time to the preparation and trial of litigated
matters. He has appeared in Courts throughout New Jersey each week for
litigation and contested Probate hearings.
Vercammen has published over 125 legal articles in national and New Jersey
publications on elder law, probate and litigation topics. He is a highly
regarded lecturer on litigation issues for the American Bar Association,
NJ ICLE, New Jersey State Bar Association and Middlesex County Bar Association.
His articles have been published in noted publications included New Jersey
Law Journal, ABA Law Practice Management Magazine, and New Jersey Lawyer.
is chair of the Elder Law Committee of the American Bar Association General
Practice Division. He is also Editor of the ABA Estate Planning Probate
Committee Newsletter and also the Criminal Law Committee newsletter. Mr.
Vercammen is a recipient of the NJSBA- YLD Service to the Bar Award. And
past Winner "General Practice Attorney of the Year" from the
NJ State Bar Association. He is a 22 year active member of the American
Bar Association. He is also a member of the ABA Real Property, Probate
& Trust Section.
established the NJlaws website which includes many articles on Elder Law.
Mr. Vercammen received his B.S., cum laude, from the University of Scranton
and his J.D. from Widener/Delaware Law School, where he was the Case Note
Editor of the Delaware Law Forum, a member of the Law Review and the winner
of the Delaware Trial Competition.
RECENT SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS ON WILLS, ELDER LAW, AND PROBATE
Edison Adult School -Wills, Elder Law & Probate- 2007, 2006, 2005,
2004, 2003, 2002 [inc Edison TV], 2001, 2000,1999,1998,1997
Nuts & Bolts of Elder Law - NJ Institute for Continuing Legal Education/
NJ State Bar ICLE/NJSBA 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2000,
Elder Law and Estate Planning- American Bar Association Miami 2007
Elder Law Practice, New Ethical Ideas to Improve Your Practice by Giving
Clients What They Want and Need American Bar Association Hawaii 2006
South Plainfield Seniors- New Probate Law 2005, East Brunswick Seniors-
New Probate Law 2005
Old Bridge AARP 2002; Guardian Angeles/ Edison 2002; St. Cecilia/ Woodbridge
East Brunswick/ Halls Corner 2002;
Linden AARP 2002
Woodbridge Adult School -Wills and Estate Administration -2001, 2000,
1999, 1998, 1997, 1996
Woodbridge Housing 2001; Metuchen Seniors & Metuchen TV 2001; Frigidare/
Local 401 Edison 2001; Chelsea/ East Brunswick 2001, Village Court/ Edison
2001; Old Bridge Rotary 2001; Sacred Heart/ South Amboy 2001; Livingston
Manor/ New Brunswick 2001; Sunrise East Brunswick 2001; Strawberry Hill/
Wills and Elder Law - Metuchen Adult School 1999,1997,1996,1995,1994,1993
Clara Barton Senior Citizens- Wills & Elder Law-Edison 2002, 1995
AARP Participating Attorney in Legal Plan for NJ AARP members 1999-2005
Contact the Law Office
Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.
for an appointment.
Law Office cannot provide legal advice or answer legal questions over
the phone or by email. Please call the Law office and schedule a
confidential "in office" consultation. The Law Office
now accepts payment by American Express, Visa and Master Card.
This web site is purely a public
resource of general New Jersey information (intended, but not promised
or guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up-to-date). It is not intended
be a source of legal advice, do not rely on information at this site
or others in place of the advice of competent counsel. The Law Office
of Kenneth Vercammen complies with the New Jersey Rules of Professional
Conduct. This web site is not sponsored or associated with any particular
linked entity unless specifically stated. The existence of any
particular link is simply intended to imply potential interest to the
reader, inclusion of a link should not be construed as an endorsement.
Kenneth Vercammen handles
Wills, Last Will and Testament, probate contests, estate administration,
inheritance tax, executor, surrogate, Living Wills, estates, trusts,
undue influence, administrator, elder law, elderlaw, senior citizen,
eldercare, guardianship, trusts, estates, Avoid Probate, Personal
Injury, Deceased, Estate Planning, New Jersey Lawyer, New Jersey Attorney,
New Jersey Lawyers, New Jersey Law Firm, New Jersey Legal Service,
New Jersey New Jersey legal, New Jersey law, NJ Lawyer,
NJ Attorney, NJ Attorneys, NJ Lawyers, NJ Law Firm, Middlesex County,
Monmouth County, Mercer County, Somerset County, Union County, Ocean
County, Cranbury Police, East Brunswick, Edison, Highland Park, Jamesburg,
Old Bridge, Metuchen, Monroe, New Brunswick, North Brunswick, Perth
Amboy, Piscataway, Plainsboro, Sayreville, South Brunswick, South
Plainfield, Woodbridge, Superior Court, attorney,
Law Firm, 08817, 07095,08816, 08901, 08903
Copyright 2018. Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.