## Facts

- Alice G. Clark, a 77-year-old childless widow, executed a will on November 12, 1971, and died on April 22, 1972.
- The will made 14 specific legacies totaling $56,000, including $5,000 to her nephew Harry S. Leech (and his wife) and $10,000 to Lyda M. Smith (wife of John H. Smith).
- The residuary clause left the balance of the estate, including significant assets, to John H. Smith (Clark’s first cousin), who was also named executor.
- Leech was Clark’s only other relative and would have taken the estate by intestacy under the then-applicable statute if the will (or its residue) failed.
- The will was admitted to probate, and Leech appealed to the Orphans’ Court alleging lack of capacity and that the will was procured by undue influence, duress, and constraint by Smith.
- After an issue devisavit vel non trial, the Orphans’ Court found undue influence as to the residuary clause and set aside that clause while leaving the specific legacies intact.
- Smith appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence established a presumption of undue influence by proving (a) a confidential relationship between Clark and Smith, (b) weakened intellect in Clark at execution, and (c) a substantial benefit to Smith under the will.
2. If the presumption applied, whether Smith rebutted it by clear and convincing evidence that the residuary bequest reflected Clark’s free and independent intent.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the decree setting aside the residuary clause in Smith’s favor.
- The court held that the record supported findings of (1) a confidential relationship between Smith and Clark, (2) Clark’s weakened intellect at the time of execution, and (3) Smith’s receipt of the bulk of the estate.
- Those three elements created a presumption of undue influence and shifted to Smith the burden to prove absence of undue influence by clear and convincing evidence.
- Smith did not carry that burden; the trial court’s credibility-based findings supported the conclusion that Smith’s influence overcame Clark’s free agency as to the residue.
- The remainder of the will, including specific legacies, was not disturbed.

## Legal Principles

- A presumption of undue influence arises in a will contest when the contestant proves by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a confidential relationship between testator and principal beneficiary, (2) weakened intellect, and (3) a substantial benefit to that beneficiary.
- A “confidential relationship” may be shown by dependence or trust justifiably reposed, not only by formal fiduciary status.
- “Weakened intellect” is distinct from testamentary incapacity; it may exist even when the testator retains sufficient capacity to execute a will.
- Once the presumption arises, the proponent bears the burden of persuasion to prove the absence of undue influence by clear and convincing evidence.
- Compliance with testamentary formalities and evidence of benign assistance or a plausible motive to favor the beneficiary may be insufficient to rebut the presumption when the factfinder credits contrary evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld invalidation of the residuary clause because the contestant proved a confidential relationship, weakened intellect, and a substantial benefit to the proponent, triggering a presumption of undue influence that the proponent failed to rebut by clear and convincing evidence.


In re Estate of Clark, 461 Pa. 52, 334 A.2d 628 (Pa. 1975)