## Facts

- Evelyn Afton Maheras died testate in 1991 at age 96; her nephew, Richard H. Suagee, was her sole heir at law.
- Maheras had a long relationship with Dr. William H. Cook, pastor of First Baptist Church of Bartlesville, and became dependent on Cook and church members for assistance as her health and living conditions deteriorated.
- Cook arranged for a church-member attorney to prepare Maheras’s will, delivered the draft to Maheras, discussed its terms with her, and arranged transportation for her to execute it.
- The will left the bulk of the estate to First Baptist Church, named Cook as co-executor, and left Suagee substantially less.
- The attesting witnesses were members of First Baptist and were selected by Cook.
- Suagee contested probate, alleging lack of capacity, undue influence by Cook, and interested witnesses.
- The district court found Maheras had testamentary capacity and the witnesses were disinterested, but denied probate because Cook unduly influenced the will’s procurement and making.
- The court of appeals reversed, reasoning Cook could not unduly influence because he received no personal benefit under the will.

## Issues

1. Whether a third party who takes no personal benefit under a will may, as a matter of law, be capable of unduly influencing the will’s procurement or making.
2. Whether the record supported the district court’s finding of undue influence warranting denial of probate.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion, reinstated and affirmed the district court’s order denying probate, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- The court held that a non-beneficiary may be legally capable of undue influence; personal receipt of a devise is not required.
- With the court of appeals’ legal error removed, the district court’s undue-influence finding was allowed to stand.

## Legal Principles

- Undue influence in a will contest does not require that the alleged influencer personally benefit under the will.
- The central inquiry is whether the testator’s free agency was overborne, assessed through evidence such as dependency, the nature of the relationship, and the influencer’s participation in procuring the will.
- An appellate court may not negate a trial court’s undue-influence determination by imposing a categorical rule that only direct beneficiaries can be undue influencers; trial-level fact findings are respected when supported by the record.

## Conclusion

A person who receives no direct benefit under a will may still unduly influence its procurement or making, including where a trusted advisor acts in favor of a third-party beneficiary; applying that rule, the denial of probate based on the pastor’s undue influence benefiting his church was reinstated and affirmed.


In re Estate of Maheras, 897 P.2d 268 (Okla. 1995)