by Roger McEowen, Leonard Dolezal Professor in Agricultural Law, (515) 294-4076, mceowen@iastate.eduby Roger McEowen, Leonard Dolezal Professor in Agricultural Law, (515) 294-4076, mceowen@iastate.eduWhen there is suspicion that a decedent has been influenced by someone else in the disposition of their property upon death, a challenge to the will may be made by those affected by the disposition. Basically, the claim is that the decedent’s will was not an expression of their own free will. This case represented a challenge to a will based on the alleged undue influence of the decedent’s spouse.
In a will challenge case, the burden of proof is on the party challenging the will. When the claim is undue influence, the party challenging the will must establish that the person alleged to have exerted undue influence was in a confidential relationship with the decedent, and took advantage of that relationship for their own benefit by dictating the terms of the decedent’s will. Here, the decedent’s first wife died and the decedent married his second wife about a year later. Two of the decedent’s children challenged his will that left property to their step-mother. After his first wife died, the decedent’s health declined, he became depressed, drank heavily and spent lots of money on gambling and booze. After meeting and marrying his second wife, the decedent’s spending habits also changed to support a higher standard of living and increased travel. The two children claimed that their step-mother took advantage of their father’s declining mental and physical state to steer property her way that he otherwise would have left to them. The trial court, however, disagreed and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Based on the evidence, the court reasoned that the decedent’s spending patterns arose out of his sense of obligation to care for his second wife rather than any particular influence she exerted over him.
The court also upheld the trial court’s determination that the premarital agreement between the decedent and his second wife was valid. Again, the children failed to carry their burden of proof that their step-mother violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under the agreement. Stensrud v. Helgeson, No. 6-534/05-1078 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2006).