Undue Influence Case Study

Case 2:
When is undue influence or lack of capacity present when giving away property? What factors or tests have the courts put in place to prove this was present?

According to 23 Am. Jur.2d Deeds § 176, the definition of "Undue influence," needed to contest conveyances, is that influence that dominates a grantor's will and destroys his or her free agency and coerces it to serve the will of another.[1] A grantor who has been unduly influenced does not have the requisite intent to execute the deed.[2] However, a deed executed as a result of undue influence practiced upon the grantor is voidable rather than void[3], and if, before the grantor takes steps to avoid the deed, the grantee therein conveys the premises to an innocent purchaser, a court of equity will extend protection to such purchaser.[4] Undue influence constitutes an equitable ground for the cancellation of a deed.[5] Undue influence is distinguishable from duress,[6] in that undue influence is a more subtle domination of the grantor's will, especially by one who stands in a relation of confidence with the grantor.[7]
Particular circumstances which should be taken into consideration in determining whether a deed was procured by undue influence include: the character of the transaction,[16] the divergence of results accomplished from results normally to be anticipated, [17] the inequality of distribution, [18] the situation of the grantor, [19] the relationship of the parties, [20] the activity of the beneficiary[21] and the participation by the transferee or his or her agent in the preparation of the deed, [22] the time and manner of offering suggestions or advice[23] and the underlying motive thereof, [24] and the grantor’s condition of mind and body.[25] Although such circumstances may not be sufficient either singly or collectively to establish conclusively that a deed was obtained by undue influence, they are nevertheless proper for consideration on such