The sister and brother-in-law of an elderly man hired a full-time nurse for him after he underwent a leg amputation and other medical procedures. The nurse moved into the man’s home and lived there for five years, until his death. Approximately four months after the nurse moved in, she participated in meetings with his attorney, reviewed his will with him, and was present at the execution of the will. The nurse, along with the sister and brother-in-law, prevented the man’s daughter and her children from visiting him.

After the man died, his daughter filed a caveat (objection) to the will, which left his primary residence to the nurse and the rest of his estate to his sister and brother-in-law. A jury found the will to be invalid because it was the product of undue influence. When the brother-in-law, as Executor, appealed, the Supreme Court upheld the jury verdict.¹

A presumption of undue influence invalidating a will arises when a beneficiary under the will has a “confidential relationship” with the testator (exercises a controlling influence over the conduct and interest of the person executing the will).

Here, the man was almost completely dependent upon the nurse for all of his personal and medical needs, she isolated him from his daughter, and she took part in the preparation of the will. That evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding that the will was the product of undue influence by the nurse. The will was therefore invalid, and the daughter became the sole beneficiary of her father’s estate.