undue influence test in Pennsylvania

2017Moreover, “[f]or purposes of the undue influence test, a weakened intellect does not rise to the level of testamentary incapacity.” In re Estate of Angle, 777 A.2d 114, 113 (Pa. Super. 2001).

2014Gallman relies on In re Estate of Angle, 777 A.2d 114 (Pa. Super. 2001), which set forth the undue influence test in a will contest: (1) there was a “confidential relationship” between the proponent and testator; (2) the proponent receives a substantial benefit under the will; and (3) the testator had a weakened intellect.

2019See, e.g., In re Estate of Smaling, 80 A.3d 485, 493 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (stating elements of an undue influence claim). -7- J-A04034-19 the existence of a “confidential relationship” between Marian and Gabriella.

2019The issue of undue influence regularly arises in will contest cases, and the orphans’ court - 14 - J-A04034-19 applied the undue influence standard enunciated in those cases.6 Under that standard, the contestant must establish “by clear and convincing evidence” that: “(1) the testator suffered from a weakened intellect; (2) the testator was in a confidential relationship with the proponent of the will; and (3) the proponent receives a substantial benefit from the will in question.” In re Estate of Smaling, 80 A.3d 485, 493 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc); see also Estate of Luongo, 823 A.2d 942, 9

2021See Owens, 847 A.2d at 706 .

2021CONCURRING AND DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: July 29, 2021 I agree with the learned Majority that although the orphans’ court erroneously applied the more stringent undue influence standard for testamentary transfers, the record supports its findings of a confidential relationship between Mother and Son and considerable financial benefit to Son at the time the bonds were redeemed and the joint bank account established.1 ____________________________________________ 1 In a testamentary proceeding, Pennsylvania courts have recognized a presumption of undue influence based on evidence

2019Once the contestant establishes these three elements, “a presumption of undue influence arises and the burden of proof shifts back to the proponent to prove affirmatively the absence of undue influence.” In re Estate of Pedrick, 482 A.2d 215, 219 (Pa. 1984); see also Smaling, 80 A.3d at 493 .

2019Moreover, Appellant’s counsel represented at the hearing that the expert would solely be testifying on the weakened intellect element, N.T., 4/4/18, Vol. II, at 62, and, therefore, this testimony would not have aided Appellant in proving the other two elements of the undue influence claim. - 19 - J-A04034-19 33 (Pa. Super. 1982)); see also Frowen, 425 A.2d at 416 . “[A] business transaction may be the basis of a confidential relationship only if one party surrenders substantial control over some portion of his affairs to the other.” Yenchi, 161 A.3d at 823 (quoting In re Estate of Scott, 316 A

2019The issue of undue influence regularly arises in will contest cases, and the orphans’ court - 14 - J-A04034-19 applied the undue influence standard enunciated in those cases.6 Under that standard, the contestant must establish “by clear and convincing evidence” that: “(1) the testator suffered from a weakened intellect; (2) the testator was in a confidential relationship with the proponent of the will; and (3) the proponent receives a substantial benefit from the will in question.” In re Estate of Smaling, 80 A.3d 485, 493 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc); see also Estate of Luongo, 823 A.2d 942, 9

2019Moreover, Appellant’s counsel represented at the hearing that the expert would solely be testifying on the weakened intellect element, N.T., 4/4/18, Vol. II, at 62, and, therefore, this testimony would not have aided Appellant in proving the other two elements of the undue influence claim. - 19 - J-A04034-19 33 (Pa. Super. 1982)); see also Frowen, 425 A.2d at 416 . “[A] business transaction may be the basis of a confidential relationship only if one party surrenders substantial control over some portion of his affairs to the other.” Yenchi, 161 A.3d at 823 (quoting In re Estate of Scott, 316 A

2019Furthermore, “even where special vulnerabilities exist, this Court has not recognized the existence of a confidential relationship if the person continued to act on his or her own behalf and did not succumb to any ‘overmastering influence’ of another.” Id. at 821–22.

2019Moreover, Appellant’s counsel represented at the hearing that the expert would solely be testifying on the weakened intellect element, N.T., 4/4/18, Vol. II, at 62, and, therefore, this testimony would not have aided Appellant in proving the other two elements of the undue influence claim. - 19 - J-A04034-19 33 (Pa. Super. 1982)); see also Frowen, 425 A.2d at 416 . “[A] business transaction may be the basis of a confidential relationship only if one party surrenders substantial control over some portion of his affairs to the other.” Yenchi, 161 A.3d at 823 (quoting In re Estate of Scott, 316 A

2017We observe that testamentary capacity is distinguishable from the "weakened intellect" prong of the undue influence test, Estate of Lakatosh, 656 A.2d 1378, 1384 (Pa. Super.

2013“Substantial benefit” has not been precisely defined in our case law. “[Ijndeed, it may be said no hard and fast rule can be laid down. [The court’s finding] must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.” In re Estate of LeVin, 419 Pa.Super. 89 , 615 A.2d 38, 41 (1992), quoting Adams’ Estate, 220 Pa. 531 , 69 A. 989, 990 (1908).

2013“Substantial benefit” has not been precisely defined in our case law. “[Ijndeed, it may be said no hard and fast rule can be laid down. [The court’s finding] must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.” In re Estate of LeVin, 419 Pa.Super. 89 , 615 A.2d 38, 41 (1992), quoting Adams’ Estate, 220 Pa. 531 , 69 A. 989, 990 (1908).

2013“Substantial benefit” has not been precisely defined in our case law. “[Ijndeed, it may be said no hard and fast rule can be laid down. [The court’s finding] must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.” In re Estate of LeVin, 419 Pa.Super. 89 , 615 A.2d 38, 41 (1992), quoting Adams’ Estate, 220 Pa. 531 , 69 A. 989, 990 (1908).

2013“Substantial benefit” has not been precisely defined in our case law. “[Ijndeed, it may be said no hard and fast rule can be laid down. [The court’s finding] must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.” In re Estate of LeVin, 419 Pa.Super. 89 , 615 A.2d 38, 41 (1992), quoting Adams’ Estate, 220 Pa. 531 , 69 A. 989, 990 (1908).

2013Estate of Simpson, 407 Pa.Super. 1, 9 , 595 A.2d 94, 98 (1991). 10.

2013Estate of Simpson, 407 Pa.Super. 1, 9 , 595 A.2d 94, 98 (1991). 10.

2003Solomon v. Gibson, 419 Pa. Super. 284, 293 , 615 A.2d 367, 371 (1992) quoting Aiello v. Ed Saxe Real Estate Inc., 508 Pa. 553, 559 , 499 A.2d 282, 287 (1985). (emphasis added) The respondeat superior doctrine unquestionably applies to an undue influence claim.

2003Solomon v. Gibson, 419 Pa. Super. 284, 293 , 615 A.2d 367, 371 (1992) quoting Aiello v. Ed Saxe Real Estate Inc., 508 Pa. 553, 559 , 499 A.2d 282, 287 (1985). (emphasis added) The respondeat superior doctrine unquestionably applies to an undue influence claim.

2003Solomon v. Gibson, 419 Pa. Super. 284, 293 , 615 A.2d 367, 371 (1992) quoting Aiello v. Ed Saxe Real Estate Inc., 508 Pa. 553, 559 , 499 A.2d 282, 287 (1985). (emphasis added) The respondeat superior doctrine unquestionably applies to an undue influence claim.

2003Solomon v. Gibson, 419 Pa. Super. 284, 293 , 615 A.2d 367, 371 (1992) quoting Aiello v. Ed Saxe Real Estate Inc., 508 Pa. 553, 559 , 499 A.2d 282, 287 (1985). (emphasis added) The respondeat superior doctrine unquestionably applies to an undue influence claim.

2001In re Estate of Glover, 447 Pa.Super. 509 , 669 A.2d 1011 (1996). ¶43 A confidential relationship for purposes of undue influence exists “whenever circumstances make it certain that the parties did not deal on equal terms but that on one side there was an over-mastering influence, and on the other, dependence or trust, justifiably reposed.” In re Estate of Jakiella, 353 Pa.Super. 581 , 510 A.2d 815, 817-818 (1986); see also In re Estate of Clark, 461 Pa. 52 , 334 A.2d 628 (1975).

2001In re Estate of Glover, 447 Pa.Super. 509 , 669 A.2d 1011 (1996). ¶43 A confidential relationship for purposes of undue influence exists “whenever circumstances make it certain that the parties did not deal on equal terms but that on one side there was an over-mastering influence, and on the other, dependence or trust, justifiably reposed.” In re Estate of Jakiella, 353 Pa.Super. 581 , 510 A.2d 815, 817-818 (1986); see also In re Estate of Clark, 461 Pa. 52 , 334 A.2d 628 (1975).

2001In re Estate of Glover, 447 Pa.Super. 509 , 669 A.2d 1011 (1996). ¶43 A confidential relationship for purposes of undue influence exists “whenever circumstances make it certain that the parties did not deal on equal terms but that on one side there was an over-mastering influence, and on the other, dependence or trust, justifiably reposed.” In re Estate of Jakiella, 353 Pa.Super. 581 , 510 A.2d 815, 817-818 (1986); see also In re Estate of Clark, 461 Pa. 52 , 334 A.2d 628 (1975).

2001In re Estate of Glover, 447 Pa.Super. 509 , 669 A.2d 1011 (1996). ¶43 A confidential relationship for purposes of undue influence exists “whenever circumstances make it certain that the parties did not deal on equal terms but that on one side there was an over-mastering influence, and on the other, dependence or trust, justifiably reposed.” In re Estate of Jakiella, 353 Pa.Super. 581 , 510 A.2d 815, 817-818 (1986); see also In re Estate of Clark, 461 Pa. 52 , 334 A.2d 628 (1975).