## Facts

- Robert D. Kaufmann, an unmarried wealthy heir with limited business aptitude, increasingly focused on painting and relied on others for financial affairs.
- Kaufmann hired Walter A. Weiss, a nonpracticing attorney, as a financial consultant; Weiss later lived with Kaufmann and managed much of Kaufmann’s daily and financial life.
- Evidence showed Weiss handled household operations and controlled access to Kaufmann’s finances and communications.
- Kaufmann’s relationships with his brothers and nephews shifted from close and affectionate to estranged during the period of Weiss’s growing involvement.
- Kaufmann executed successive wills giving Weiss increasing benefits, culminating in a June 19, 1958 will leaving substantially all property to Weiss and effectively disinheriting Kaufmann’s brothers and nephews.
- Kaufmann executed other instruments giving Weiss broad authority over property and personal matters in the event of incapacity.
- The will contest was limited to undue influence; two separate juries, in two trials, found the 1958 will was the product of Weiss’s undue influence, and the Surrogate denied probate both times.
- A prior divided appellate ruling had reversed an earlier decree denying probate due to trial error and ordered a new trial; on retrial, the jury again found undue influence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence at the second trial was legally sufficient to permit a jury finding that the 1958 will was procured by undue influence.
2. Whether the prior appellate ruling required, as law of the case, that the undue-influence claim remained for the jury absent materially different proof.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the decree denying probate of the 1958 will.
- The court held the contestants’ proof, viewed as a whole, supported submission to the jury and supported the verdict of undue influence.
- The court applied law of the case, treating its prior ruling as having determined that the contestants had made out at least a prima facie case on undue influence, with no materially changed record on retrial.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Undue influence invalidates a will when influence over the testator restrains independent action and destroys free agency so that the disposition is not the testator’s free act.
- Undue influence is commonly proved by circumstantial evidence; the factfinder may infer influence from the entire relationship and surrounding conduct rather than direct proof of coercion.
- A disposition favoring an unrelated beneficiary over close family is not alone enough to prove undue influence, but it may be considered with other circumstances, including dependency and dominance by the beneficiary.
- Where an appellate court has previously determined that evidence was sufficient to require jury consideration, that determination generally governs subsequent proceedings in the same case absent materially different evidence (law of the case).
- A confidential or dominating relationship between testator and principal beneficiary can be a significant circumstance supporting an inference of undue influence, particularly where the beneficiary manages the testator’s affairs and contributes to the testator’s estrangement from family.

## Conclusion

The courts denied probate of Kaufmann’s 1958 will because circumstantial evidence supported the jury’s determination that Weiss’s dominant relationship, control over Kaufmann’s affairs, and the sharp departure from prior family attachments permitted an inference that the will did not reflect Kaufmann’s independent intent, and the prior appellate ruling required leaving the issue to the jury on retrial.


In re Kaufmann’s Will, 20 A.D.2d 464, 247 N.Y.S.2d 664 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1964), aff’d mem., 15 N.Y.2d 825, 257 N.Y.S.2d 941, 205 N.E.2d 864 (1965)