Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1995, page 6
work.” Records show that the insurance check had “bounced,” but was eventually
covered along with a penalty fee after crediting the month’s social security check.
Then you glance at her savings account record.
However, it is not necessary to prove that the beneficiary held such a dominant position
that the person induced was entirely without power to assert his will. Nor need there be
what would be considered a strict fiduciary relationship. What is required is that a
confidential relationship existed and that the transaction results from the improper exercise
of the relationship.
Generally, a presumption of undue influence may be rebutted by competent and sufficient
evidence. The person charged with undue influence is given the opportunity to prove that
the party allegedly influenced had benefit of disinterested advice, or that the person
voluntarily and deliberately acted. Another defense to undue influence is that the
transaction itself was equitable (that, for example, the influenced seller received fair market
value). The mere opportunity to exercise undue influence is not sufficient in itself to prove
undue influence, nor in non-fiduciary relationship situations does the fact of power, motive,
and opportunity to exercise undue influence result in a presumption.
Reviewing her savings account, you’re shocked to see that during the past six
months most of the $23,000 she had has been depleted. She tells you she knew
about the savings: “Most of the monies have gone into the new church wing
they’re going to put up a plaque with my name on it in gold. I don’t have long
here anyway.”
Ordinarily, actions taken based on undue influence are not automatically void, but voidable.
A business contract, will, or property transfer is, therefore, open to attack --but until
successfully challenged the actions are considered legitimate, even where a fiduciary
relationship exists.
A presumption of undue influence arises in confidential relationships where the beneficiary is
the dominant spirit in the transaction. What constitutes undue influence, however, is a
question of fact dependent on individual case circumstances and, in general, are issues
often submitted to a jury or judge as the trier of fact.
What, if anything, should and can you do to “help” your cousin? She knows, for
the most part, how her money is being spent. The church leader is a pillar in the
community, and your cousin has been a long-time member. But you know she has
never given more than a few hundred, at most, to any charitable cause. And the
accountant --what’s his role here. Does she really want to do this? The case
decisions in the next section might assist you to begin answering these difficult
questions.
Undue Influence: Case Law Developments in the Cult Context
Many nonprofit, philanthropic and religious organizations rely heavily on the practice of
solicitation to remain in existence. These organizations often devote a significant portion of
their staff and resources to increasing overall contributions. To the degree that the
donations of money, property, or time are given willingly and with deliberate judgment,
they are proper. To the degree that they are received without the donor‟s use of deliberate
discretion, reason, or judgment but as a result of another person exercising power through
a confidential or quasi-confidential relationship, the gifts are subject to a challenge based on
undue influence.
One prerequisite to a finding of undue influence is a determination that a confidential
relationship existed. Courts have recognized various confidential relationships, including
attorney-client, guardian-ward, parent-child, and priest-parishioner. The issue in the cult
work.” Records show that the insurance check had “bounced,” but was eventually
covered along with a penalty fee after crediting the month’s social security check.
Then you glance at her savings account record.
However, it is not necessary to prove that the beneficiary held such a dominant position
that the person induced was entirely without power to assert his will. Nor need there be
what would be considered a strict fiduciary relationship. What is required is that a
confidential relationship existed and that the transaction results from the improper exercise
of the relationship.
Generally, a presumption of undue influence may be rebutted by competent and sufficient
evidence. The person charged with undue influence is given the opportunity to prove that
the party allegedly influenced had benefit of disinterested advice, or that the person
voluntarily and deliberately acted. Another defense to undue influence is that the
transaction itself was equitable (that, for example, the influenced seller received fair market
value). The mere opportunity to exercise undue influence is not sufficient in itself to prove
undue influence, nor in non-fiduciary relationship situations does the fact of power, motive,
and opportunity to exercise undue influence result in a presumption.
Reviewing her savings account, you’re shocked to see that during the past six
months most of the $23,000 she had has been depleted. She tells you she knew
about the savings: “Most of the monies have gone into the new church wing
they’re going to put up a plaque with my name on it in gold. I don’t have long
here anyway.”
Ordinarily, actions taken based on undue influence are not automatically void, but voidable.
A business contract, will, or property transfer is, therefore, open to attack --but until
successfully challenged the actions are considered legitimate, even where a fiduciary
relationship exists.
A presumption of undue influence arises in confidential relationships where the beneficiary is
the dominant spirit in the transaction. What constitutes undue influence, however, is a
question of fact dependent on individual case circumstances and, in general, are issues
often submitted to a jury or judge as the trier of fact.
What, if anything, should and can you do to “help” your cousin? She knows, for
the most part, how her money is being spent. The church leader is a pillar in the
community, and your cousin has been a long-time member. But you know she has
never given more than a few hundred, at most, to any charitable cause. And the
accountant --what’s his role here. Does she really want to do this? The case
decisions in the next section might assist you to begin answering these difficult
questions.
Undue Influence: Case Law Developments in the Cult Context
Many nonprofit, philanthropic and religious organizations rely heavily on the practice of
solicitation to remain in existence. These organizations often devote a significant portion of
their staff and resources to increasing overall contributions. To the degree that the
donations of money, property, or time are given willingly and with deliberate judgment,
they are proper. To the degree that they are received without the donor‟s use of deliberate
discretion, reason, or judgment but as a result of another person exercising power through
a confidential or quasi-confidential relationship, the gifts are subject to a challenge based on
undue influence.
One prerequisite to a finding of undue influence is a determination that a confidential
relationship existed. Courts have recognized various confidential relationships, including
attorney-client, guardian-ward, parent-child, and priest-parishioner. The issue in the cult
