Not every close relationship amounts to undue influence, even if someone ends up inheriting everything. In In re Estate of Laury, the New Jersey Appellate Division reaffirmed that suspicion alone isn’t enough to overturn a will.
When Michael Laury Jr. passed away in 2020, he left behind a will naming his aunt Michelle as executor and sole beneficiary. His father, Michael Sr., challenged the will, claiming Michelle had unduly influenced his son.
But here’s the key: Michael Sr. had spent much of his son’s childhood incarcerated and was not involved in his life. Michelle, by contrast, had a close and supportive relationship with the decedent, especially during his final year battling cancer.
The will was properly executed, witnessed, notarized, and signed by the decedent while he was alert and oriented. Michelle testified that she didn’t even know she was the sole beneficiary until after the will was signed.
The trial court found no confidential relationship between Michelle and the decedent and no suspicious circumstances. All witnesses, including the notary and both witnesses to the will, were found to be credible.
Michael Sr. appealed, arguing the court failed to apply the presumption of undue influence. But the Appellate Division affirmed the decision, citing clear standards from in re Estate of Stockdale and Haynes v. First Nat’l State Bank:
Undue influence requires conduct that overcomes the testator’s free will at the time the will was made.
The Legal Standard for Undue Influence
In this case, no such influence was found, and there was no basis to shift the burden to Michelle. Laury shows that even when a beneficiary is a close relative, the burden of proving undue influence is high. Courts look for both a confidential relationship and suspicious circumstances. Without both, a properly executed will is hard to defeat.
