Undue Influence and Forceful Personalities in Probate Claims – Rea V Rea
Posted on in Dispute Resolution
In the context of contentious probate claims, undue influence is used to describe a situation where a person pressures another person, usually through emotional manipulation, but sometimes with physical force, into making a will that does not really reflect their actual intentions of how they want their estate to be dealt with after they die.
Our previous insight explains what undue influence is in greater detail: More Than Persuasion, a Cautionary Tale of Undue Influence | Tozers.
The recent case of Rea v Rea (2024)
Mrs Anna Rea (the Deceased) died in 2016, and she had made a new will the year before. The case concerns her four children, with Rita arguing for the validity of the will and her sons, Remo, Nino, and David, arguing that the will was invalid.
The previous will divided the entire estate evenly between her four children. However, the most recent will provided that the Deceased’s most valuable asset, her home, went solely to Rita, and the remaining estate was to be distributed equally between all 4 children.
Rita had been the deceased’s primary caregiver since 2009 until their death. Whilst preparing the 2015 will, Rita had made the appointment and was present, at the deceased’s request, during the meeting. Rita intervened from time to time during the meeting, but the will drafter took instructions from the deceased solely. The Deceased stated she made the changes to her will as she felt “abandoned” by her sons and that they did not care for her.
The Deceased was frail; she was hard of hearing, required constant care, and was wheelchair-bound. She was entirely dependent on Rita. A capacity assessment had been conducted, and the doctor declared she did have mental capacity when she made the change to her will. It was also acknowledged that the Deceased had been firm and clear in her intention and was consistent about her wish to leave the property to Rita.
The sons sought to dispute the validity of the will on numerous points, the crucial one being on the basis that Rita exerted undue influence over her mother.
Overturned and overturned again
At first instance, the sons were successful in their claim that the will had been invalidated on the basis that Rita exerted undue influence over the Deceased. However, Rita appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal.
On appeal, the validity of the will was restored.
From the outset, Rita had been described as having an argumentative and forceful personality, and, given her presence at meetings, it is quite easy to assume that undue influence had been exerted. This is what had been decided at the first hearing, and the will was revoked as the judge found that the factors all provided solid and reliable evidence of Rita’s coercion and undue influence. The appeal judge disagreed.
The appeal judgment clarified that undue influence requires there to be coercion that ultimately overpowers the volition of the Deceased, subjects them to the domination of another, and causes them to act against their wishes. The judge emphasises that it must be coercion and not just persuasiveness to establish undue influence. Therefore, a forceful personality on its own will not be enough to establish undue influence.
The appeal also confirmed that undue influence cannot simply be another “hypothesis” as to why the Deceased changed their will. The judge stated,” If another possibility is just as likely, undue influence will not have been established”. This requires those claiming undue influence to show that, whilst there may be other reasons for the Deceased to change their will, coercion is the most likely reason for changing the will.
Case comment
It is a common misconception that the Courts are ready and willing to interfere with the wishes someone sets down in their will too easily. This is rarely the case, and the basic position is that a properly drafted will, however unfair it might be to some of the beneficiaries, will be enforced.
It is clear from this case that the Courts will not simply invalidate the will if there is a mere possibility of undue influence. There must be clear evidence that outweighs all other possibilities. This adds a level of protection to the Deceased’s will and shows the Court’s intention to honour wishes set out in a will.
Historically, undue influence claims are often the hardest to prove, not least because the key witness is no longer available, but because the person who seeks to influence the decision can do so in private. Often, the testator is cut off from friends or family who might otherwise be able to provide key evidence as to their state of mind.
How can we assist?
The case of Rea v Rea demonstrates that a claim to invalidate a will is highly dependent on the specific facts of each case. We can help untangle the details of the dispute and advise you on the strengths and weaknesses of your case and what arguments can be deployed to give you the best chance of success.
Most cases are resolved by mediation now, and we have a tracked record of successfully resolving cases without the need to take the matter all the way to a trial.
Our team of experts deals with these cases regularly and will be happy to assist you. As a top firm for client satisfaction, we have built a reputation as good listeners who can help break down complex legal jargon into words you can understand and are experts at advising on your specific situation.