equal claim in Illinois

1993We also note that, in the first test for the presumption, there is included in parentheses the statement “compared to other persons who have an equal claim to testator’s bounty.” This phrase was first included in the test in Beyers v. Billingsley, 54 Ill.

1984A prima facie case of undue influence is established, and a presumption thereof arises, when a will contestant shows: “(1) a fiduciary relationship between testator and a person who receives a substantial benefit under the will (compared to other persons who have an equal claim to testator’s bounty); (2) a testator in a dependent situation in which the substantial beneficiaries are in dominant roles; (3) a testator who reposed trust and confidence in such beneficiaries; and (4) a will prepared or procured and executed in circumstances wherein such beneficiaries were instrumental or participate

1990A presumption of undue influence arises when a will contestant shows: “ ‘(1) a fiduciary relationship between testator and a person who receives a substantial benefit under the will (compared to other persons who have an equal claim to testator’s bounty); (2) a testator in a dependent situation in which the substantial beneficiaries are in dominant roles; (3) a testator who reposed trust and confidence in such beneficiaries; and (4) a will prepared or procured and executed in circumstances wherein such beneficiaries were instrumental or participated.’ ” Nemeth v. Banhalmi (1984), 125 Ill.

1989App. 3d 938, 966 , 466 N.E.2d 977 .) A prima facie case of undue influence is made out where: (1) a fiduciary relationship existed between a testator and a person receiving a substantial benefit under the will (compared to others who have an equal claim to a testator’s bounty); (2) the testator was in a dependent situation in which the substantial beneficiaries were in dominant roles; (3) the testator reposed trust and confidence in such beneficiaries; and (4) a will was prepared or procured and executed in circumstances wherein such beneficiaries were instrumental or participated.

2022The presumption of undue influence “ ‘arises irrespective of the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the testator and the beneficiary.’ ” Id. (quoting Maher, 237 Ill.

2022The presumption of undue influence “ ‘arises irrespective of the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the testator and the beneficiary.’ ” Id. (quoting Maher, 237 Ill.

2021Glogovsek, 248 Ill.

2013Id. at 794 . ¶ 35 In Glogovsek, the wife as beneficiary clearly had a superior claim to that of the plaintiffs in that case, who were not descendants of the testator, but were rather his siblings and nieces.

1993This court found: “A presumption of undue influence arises when a will contestant shows: ‘ “(1) a fiduciary relationship between testator and a person who receives a substantial benefit under the will (compared to other persons who have an equal claim to testator’s bounty); (2) a testator in a dependent situation in which the substantial beneficiaries are in dominant roles; (3) a testator who reposed trust and confidence in such beneficiaries; and (4) a will prepared or procured and executed in circumstances wherein such beneficiaries were instrumental or participated.” ’ ” (Henke, 203 Ill.

1993A rebuttable presumption of undue influence arises when a petitioner is able to establish four elements: “ ‘ “(1) a fiduciary relationship between testator and a person who receives a substantial benefit under the will (compared to other persons who have an equal claim to testator’s bounty); (2) a testator in a dependent situation in which the substantial beneficiaries are in dominant roles; (3) a testator who reposed trust and confidence in such beneficiaries; and (4) a will prepared or procured and executed in circumstances wherein such beneficiaries were instrumental or participated.” ’ ” I

1968Mitchell v. Van Scoyk, supra, 172 ; Sulzberger v. Sulzberger, 372 Ill 240, 245, 246, 23 NE2d 46 (1939).

1953(Donnan v. Donnan, 256 Ill. 244 ; England, v. Fawbush, 204 Ill. 384 .) In Sulzberger v. Sulzberger, 372 Ill. 240 , we stated that under such circumstances one who benefits largely from a will made through his agency, in the absence of others having an equal claim to testator’s bounty, is faced with the presumption that he exercised undue influence, and the strength of the presumption depends on the condition of the testator’s mind when he made the will.

2021To set aside a will, the influence “must be of such a nature as to destroy the -9- testator’s freedom concerning the disposition of his estate and render his will that of another.” Franciscan Sisters, 95 Ill. 2d at 460 . ¶ 56 A rebuttable presumption of undue influence arises when a petitioner establishes four elements: “(1) a fiduciary relationship between testator and a person who receives a substantial benefit under the will (compared to other persons who have an equal claim to testator’s bounty); (2) a testator in a dependent situation in which the substantial beneficiaries are in dominant

2021App. 3d at 422 . ¶ 57 Once these elements are established, “the burden of production shifts to the respondent, who must produce evidence that rebuts the presumption of undue influence.” Id. at 423 .

2021To set aside a will, the influence “must be of such a nature as to destroy the -9- testator’s freedom concerning the disposition of his estate and render his will that of another.” Franciscan Sisters, 95 Ill. 2d at 460 . ¶ 56 A rebuttable presumption of undue influence arises when a petitioner establishes four elements: “(1) a fiduciary relationship between testator and a person who receives a substantial benefit under the will (compared to other persons who have an equal claim to testator’s bounty); (2) a testator in a dependent situation in which the substantial beneficiaries are in dominant

2013DeHart, 2013 IL 114137, ¶ 30 . ¶ 63 The active agency of the chief beneficiary in procuring a will, especially in the absence of those having an equal claim on the estate of a testator whose mind is debilitated by age and illness, is a circumstance indicating the probable exercise of undue influence.

2013DeHart, 2013 IL 114137, ¶ 1 .

1990App. 3d 993, 997 , 453 N.E.2d 1158, 1161 .) The circumstances which raise a presumption that a will was executed as a result of undue influence on the testator are as follows: (1) a fiduciary relationship between testator and a person who receives a substantial benefit under the will (compared to other persons who have an equal claim to the testator’s bounty); (2) a testator in a dependent situation in which the substantial beneficiaries are in dominant roles; (3) a testator who reposed trust and confidence in such beneficiaries; and (4) a will prepared or procured and executed in circumstance

1990App. 3d 993, 997 , 453 N.E.2d 1158, 1161 .) The circumstances which raise a presumption that a will was executed as a result of undue influence on the testator are as follows: (1) a fiduciary relationship between testator and a person who receives a substantial benefit under the will (compared to other persons who have an equal claim to the testator’s bounty); (2) a testator in a dependent situation in which the substantial beneficiaries are in dominant roles; (3) a testator who reposed trust and confidence in such beneficiaries; and (4) a will prepared or procured and executed in circumstance

1984App. 3d 427, 436-37 , 369 N.E.2d 1320, 1327 .) Once these elements are shown, the burden is on the proponent of the will to present evidence tending to rebut the presumption (Tidholm v. Tidholm (1945), 391 Ill. 19 , 62 N.E.2d 473 ); however, “[t]he amount of evidence that is required from an adversary to meet the presumption is not determined by any fixed rule.

1984App. 3d 427, 436-37 , 369 N.E.2d 1320, 1327 .) Once these elements are shown, the burden is on the proponent of the will to present evidence tending to rebut the presumption (Tidholm v. Tidholm (1945), 391 Ill. 19 , 62 N.E.2d 473 ); however, “[t]he amount of evidence that is required from an adversary to meet the presumption is not determined by any fixed rule.

1953Friberg v. Zeutschel, 379 Ill. 480 , is to the same effect.

1953(Donnan v. Donnan, 256 Ill. 244 ; England, v. Fawbush, 204 Ill. 384 .) In Sulzberger v. Sulzberger, 372 Ill. 240 , we stated that under such circumstances one who benefits largely from a will made through his agency, in the absence of others having an equal claim to testator’s bounty, is faced with the presumption that he exercised undue influence, and the strength of the presumption depends on the condition of the testator’s mind when he made the will.

1953(Donnan v. Donnan, 256 Ill. 244 ; England, v. Fawbush, 204 Ill. 384 .) In Sulzberger v. Sulzberger, 372 Ill. 240 , we stated that under such circumstances one who benefits largely from a will made through his agency, in the absence of others having an equal claim to testator’s bounty, is faced with the presumption that he exercised undue influence, and the strength of the presumption depends on the condition of the testator’s mind when he made the will.