## Facts

- An elderly widow executed a 1974 will and two related trusts (one revocable, one irrevocable) that substantially favored her surviving daughter.
- The contestants were two grandchildren from the decedent’s other daughter, who had died; they received comparatively small benefits under the 1974 plan.
- After the death of the contestants’ mother, the decedent lived with and became dependent on the favored daughter, placing trust and confidence in her.
- The 1974 instruments departed markedly from prior estate plans that had divided benefits more evenly between the two sides of the family.
- The attorney who advised the decedent and drafted the 1974 instruments also represented the favored daughter.
- The testamentary documents included an in terrorem (no-contest) clause.
- The decedent died before the effective date of a later statute that invalidated no-contest clauses in wills.

## Issues

1. Whether a presumption of undue influence arises from a confidential relationship plus suspicious circumstances, and what burden and standard apply to rebut that presumption when the drafting attorney has a professional conflict of interest with the principal beneficiary.
2. Whether, under pre-statute New Jersey common law, an in terrorem clause in testamentary documents is enforceable when the decedent died before the statute invalidating such clauses took effect.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey modified the Appellate Division judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- It held that where a presumption of undue influence arises and is tied to a drafting attorney’s professional conflict of interest (along with confidential relationships), the proponents must rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
- Because the trial court used a preponderance standard in finding the presumption rebutted, the case was remanded for new findings and conclusions applying the correct standard.
- The court held that, under the governing pre-code common law, no-contest clauses were generally enforceable and the later statute did not apply retroactively to this decedent.

## Legal Principles

- Undue influence is influence that overcomes the testator’s free agency and substitutes another’s will for the testator’s intent.
- A contestant generally bears the burden to prove undue influence, but a presumption arises when a confidential relationship and suspicious circumstances are shown; the burden shifts to the proponent.
- When the presumption of undue influence is created by a drafting attorney’s professional conflict of interest, coupled with a confidential relationship between testator and beneficiary, the proponent must rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
- A substantial, unexplained departure from prior estate plans, when combined with dependency and participation by an interested party or aligned counsel, may constitute suspicious circumstances supporting the presumption.
- For decedents dying before the effective date of the statute invalidating no-contest clauses, New Jersey common law generally enforced in terrorem clauses, subject to limits such as contests brought with probable cause and the requirement that such clauses not insulate instruments procured by undue influence.

## Conclusion

The court required heightened proof to sustain testamentary instruments drafted under conflicted legal representation when a confidential relationship and suspicious circumstances raise a presumption of undue influence, and it treated no-contest clauses as generally enforceable under pre-code common law while remanding for renewed undue-influence findings under the clear-and-convincing standard.


Haynes v. First Nat'l State Bank of N.J., 87 N.J. 163, 432 A.2d 890 (N.J. 1981)