Contesting a Will for Undue Influence by a Caregiver or Sibling

Can You Challenge a Will a Caregiver or Sibling Pressured Your Parent to Sign?

Under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-407, the will’s proponents have the burden of making prima facie proof that the will was duly executed, and the person contesting the will has the burden of establishing undue influence. The statute reads: “Contestants of a will have the burden of establishing lack of testamentary intent or capacity, undue influence, fraud, duress, mistake or revocation”. Because you carry that initial burden, you also carry the ultimate burden of persuasion on undue influence in a contested formal testacy proceeding, meaning one conducted before a judge with notice to interested persons.

Minn. Stat. § 524.3-404 adds a procedural requirement: in a Minnesota formal probate proceeding, any party who opposes the probate of a will, for any reason including undue influence, must state the objections to probate of the will in the party’s pleadings.

What a Winning Record Looked Like in Beckler

Norwest Bank Minnesota North, N.A. v. Beckler, 663 N.W.2d 571 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) shows the kind of evidence that carries these cases.

If the person who pressured your parent is now serving as personal representative, the steps in handling executor misconduct may apply alongside the will contest, and if your parent’s assets sat in a trust, review the rights of beneficiaries in Minnesota trusts.

What Do You Have to Prove to Show Undue Influence Over a Will in Minnesota?

Under In re Estate of Peterson, 168 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. 1969), undue influence over a will is influence that substitutes the will of the person exercising it for that of the testator, so that the will expresses that person’s purpose and intent rather than the testator’s. It must be equivalent to moral coercion or constraint overpowering the testator’s will, and it must operate at the very time the will is made and dominate and control its making. In practice, your evidence has to reach the period when the will was made, because the influence must operate at that very time.

The Clear and Convincing Standard

In a Minnesota will contest like this one, In re Estate of Peterson, 168 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. 1969) holds that the person contesting the will must prove by clear and convincing evidence that undue influence procured it. Matter of Estate of Rechtzigel, 385 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) explains that clear and convincing proof is shown where the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable. Peterson also recognizes that this proof is usually circumstantial. People who pressure a parent rarely announce it, so you build the case from surrounding facts.

The Six Peterson Factors

When a Minnesota court decides whether a will contestant has shown by clear and convincing circumstantial evidence that a will was procured by undue influence, In re Estate of Peterson, 168 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. 1969) lists factors the court considers, including whether the evidence shows the following:

1. An opportunity to exercise undue influence.
2. A confidential relationship between the person making the will and the party allegedly exercising the undue influence.
3. Active participation in preparing the will by that party.
4. Disinheritance of those the decedent would have been expected to remember in the will.
5. A singularity of the will’s provisions.
6. The exercise of influence or persuasion to induce the decedent to make the will.

The list is not exhaustive, the factors are weighed together, and any one factor standing alone might not be enough. One combination carries special weight under In re Estate of Peterson, 168 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. 1969): where a beneficiary of a substantial part of the estate had a confidential relationship with the testator and drafted or controlled the drafting of the will, those facts alone make a prima facie case of undue influence. So find out who called the drafting lawyer, who drove your parent to the appointments, who paid the bill, and who received the drafts.

What Is Not Enough

In Minnesota, a will contestant does not establish undue influence by clear and convincing proof merely by showing motive, opportunity, or disposition to use undue influence, a confidential relationship with the testator, an unequal or unjust will, or any combination of these. The evidence must go beyond suspicion and conjecture and show both that influence was in fact exerted and that it so dominated and controlled the testator’s mind that, in making the will, the testator ceased to act of his own free volition and became a mere puppet of the person wielding the influence. For that reason, an unfair result is not enough, and the strength of your case lies in what the influencer actually did.

Is a Parent’s Dementia a Separate Ground From Undue Influence?

Under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-407, the person contesting the will has the burden of establishing the ground for the contest, and the statute lists lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence as separate grounds, alongside lack of testamentary intent, fraud, duress, mistake and revocation. Capacity rests on Minn. Stat. § 524.2-501, which reads: “Any person 18 or more years of age who is of sound mind may make a will”.

In re the Estate of Lange, 398 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) shows the two grounds raised together. On capacity, the trial court had to determine whether, when making the will, the testator understood the nature, situation and extent of her property and the claims of others on her bounty or her remembrance, and whether she was able to hold these things in her mind long enough to form a rational judgment concerning them. On undue influence, opportunity to influence alone is not enough.

Being under a conservatorship of property also does not by itself decide whether the person could make a will. Dementia and pressure often travel together, because a confused parent is easier to steer. When your facts support both, your pleading can state both objections.

How Long Do You Have to Object to a Will in Minnesota Probate Court?

Under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-108, as a general rule, no informal probate or appointment proceeding and no formal testacy or appointment proceeding may be started more than three years after the decedent’s death. The statute has a specific rule for contesting a will that has already gone through informal probate: “a proceeding to contest an informally probated will and to secure appointment of the person with legal priority for appointment in the event the contest is successful, may be commenced within the later of 12 months from the informal probate or three years from the decedent’s death”. Section 524.3-108 exempts proceedings to interpret an already probated will, determine the heirs of a person who died without a will, and determine descent, but that exemption does not cover a challenge to a will such as an undue-influence contest.

If the Estate Has Already Been Distributed

Under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-1006, an heir or devisee, or a successor personal representative acting for them, can try to recover estate property, or its value, that a personal representative improperly distributed to someone who was not a creditor or purchaser. That right is forever barred at the later of three years after the decedent’s death or one year after the property was distributed, unless the matter was already decided in a formal testacy proceeding or in a proceeding settling the personal representative’s accounts, or was otherwise barred, but the section does not bar an action to recover property or value received as the result of fraud. If fraud is part of your facts, also read how long you have to file a fraud claim.

If the Will Is Thrown Out, Does the Earlier Will Come Back?

Locate every prior will and codicil you can find, including copies held by earlier drafting attorneys, before you file. Those documents also show how far the new will departs from your parent’s longstanding plan.

Can You Also Challenge Lifetime Gifts or Account Changes the Caregiver Received?

Often the will is only part of the picture. Under Bentson v. Ellenstein, 10 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. 1943), a confidential relationship between a donor and the person receiving a lifetime gift does not, as a matter of law, by itself bar that person from receiving the gift. The gift will be upheld if, at the time, the donor was of sound mind, clearly understood the transaction, and acted of free will under no restraint or undue influence. The Minnesota Supreme Court quoted with approval the statement that courts of equity closely examine any transaction in which an agent obtains advantages from a principal beyond legitimate compensation, and may set it aside if there is ground to suppose the agent abused the principal’s confidence. The absence of independent advice is not controlling.

If the person who received the gifts is your sibling, Boynton v. Simmons, 156 Minn. 144 (Minn. 1923) applies: the parent-child relationship by itself does not put the burden on the child to prove that no undue influence induced a lifetime gift from the parent, though such a gift should receive close scrutiny. The relationship is still evidence the factfinder may weigh, sometimes heavily, and together with other facts it can support a finding of undue influence.

Deeds raise their own issues, covered in irrevocable trusts and quit claim deeds.

What to Do Now

1. Get a copy of the new will and every earlier will, codicil, and trust document you can locate.
2. Find out whether anyone has opened a probate case, and in which county, so you know whether the will was informally or formally probated.
3. List every caregiver, nurse, home health aide, neighbor, and friend who saw your parent regularly in the months around the signing.
4. Identify the drafting attorney and who arranged, attended, and paid for the meetings.
5. Preserve your own texts, emails, voicemails, and call logs with your parent and with the person you suspect.
6. Pull bank and account statements to spot lifetime gifts, new joint owners, or changed designations.

For related planning and dispute topics, start at the estate planning practice area.