Making Sense of Confidential
Relationships in Estate Law

Confidential Relationship Holdings in Estate Litigation

The courts will adjudge formation of confidential relationships to be either a matter of fact or a matter of law.

Confidential Relationships in Fact: The Supreme Court of Iowa in 1962 after hearing Oehler v. Hoffman broadly defined confidential relationships as “presence of a dominant influence” by a party who obtains the trust and confidence of another.

Probate courts today will rule a confidential relationship is a matter of fact when the evidence shows a vulnerable testator placed his trust and confidence into another person’s integrity and loyalty to act in their best interests.

This can’t be a lawful union  (i.e. power of attorney, fiduciary); yet, the courts may find closely related parties to be participants of confidential relationships in fact.

Claimants may further not assume undue influence took place in confidential relationships in fact; instead, this type of common contact obligates claimants to prove the alleged influencer exerted superior education, skill or competence to build a moral, social, private or personal relationship with the deceased.

Confidential Relationship at Law: Long before the Supreme Court of Iowa published the Oehler doctrine, the McGaffee v. McGaffee Court ruled a confidential relationship is likely to exist at law when “a blood relation is present” among the parties in question.

Fiduciaries and individuals holding power of attorney authority over testators are other examples of where the law affirms legal confidential relationships occur.

The courts may therefore infer a defendant exerted undue influence over changes to a will or trust when the claimant’s evidence shows (i) the testator and alleged influencer were relatives or (ii) the alleged influencer assumed fiduciary duties (i.e. guardianship, executor, trustee) before the testator altered the testamentary document.

Claimants Bear the Burden

For undue influence claims to be valid, the testator and the alleged influencer must have formed a confidential relationship.

Claimants likewise bear the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that such a relationship transpired.

This burden however becomes much easier to show when probate courts rule the confidential relationship in controversy was a matter of law.

Exception to Legal Presumptions

Estate case law precedent affirms the natural influence that occurs between couples in close relationships cannot be presumed undue, even if suspicious circumstances exist and the alleged influencer is a substantial beneficiary.

The courts will accordingly hold close or intimate relationships (i.e. married couples) to be confidential relationships in fact that claimants must prove exist.

Example Confidential Relationship in Fact 

Susan’s mom altered her will before she died and left Susan the entire family estate. This did not sit well with the other heirs who later contested the will.

Susan testified in probate court that she held an extremely close relationship with her mother who relied and depended on her care for over ten years. Susan further affirmed she took care of her mother’s hospitalization and later managed her home care needs until death.

Other individuals also witnessed Mary’s intimate and close relationship with her mother, and at times, they saw personal exchanges take place between the two while Susan’s mom was alive.

After considering the evidence, the court reasoned that the claimants cannot presume Susan exerted undue influence over alterations in the will based only on the intimate contact she had with her mother.

The claimants’ estate dispute attorney would accordingly need to provide new evidence showing Susan exercised influence and control over her mother’s intent to alter her testamentary documents.