Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1995, page 8
person to transfer all his property on the pretext that if he did not his and his family‟s souls
would be lost, the Dodges‟ conduct amounted to undue influence. The court found a
confidential relationship existed. Also, the court found the Dodges‟ actions amounted to
undue influence--noting the isolation of the community and the continual pressure imposed
even after initial rejections by the son-in-law to transfer his property. The court also found
that the eight year delay did not, in these circumstances, constitute laches.
In Robert-Douglas v. Meares, 624 A.2d 405 (D.C. 1992), parishioners alleged that their
contributions were obtained through undue influence. The court reversed a lower court
ruling and found that evidence of repeated individualized threats of eternal damnation for
failure to contribute or increase contributions was relevant to the issue of whether undue
influence existed. Although general invocations from the pulpit on God‟s wrath could rarely,
if ever, be the basis of an undue influence action, the court found that continued, one-on-
one personal threats, made against vulnerable listeners may not be afforded First
Amendment protection and could sustain an action in undue influence.
One case particularly illustrative of the presumption of undue influence and defense against
the presumption is In Re The Bible Speaks, Dovydenas v. The Bible Speaks, 869 F.2d 628
(1st Cir. 1989) cert. denied 493 U.S. 816. Dovydenas was heir to a large estate valued at
over $19 million. The court record showed that beginning about 1984, Dovydenas became
increasingly interested in a ministry operated by Carl Stevens called The Bible Speaks
(TBS). Stevens and Dovydenas began personal discussions in the mid-1980s, resulting in
Dovydenas donating one million dollar to TBS. Stevens advised Dovydenas that he hoped
her donation would prove to cure a TBS official of his migraine headaches. Stevens later lied
and told Dovydenas that the gift had cured the migraines.
Believing that her donations had the power to cause temporal events, Dovydenas
considered making another substantial contribution. Stevens then informed Dovydenas of a
TBS pastor, restrained in Romania and probably suffering. He told her that her
contemplated gift of $5 million would secure the pastor‟s release. Dovydenas made the $5
million donation Stevens told her not to inform her family or others about it. Three days
later, the pastor returned and Dovydenas was led to believe that her gift was the catalyst --
even though the pastor had been released before the $5 million donation was executed.
In 1985, Dovydenas contributed approximately $80,000 to TBS during this period, she was
also persuaded by Stevens to replace her attorney, accountant, and stockbroker with
individuals associated with TBS. A new will was prepared for Dovydenas, leaving all to TBS
with the exception of some jewelry and the minimum required by law to her husband.
Dovydenas told Stevens that she was experiencing marital problems in 1985, and she asked
whether another gift would solve her problems. Stevens responded by suggesting a
$500,000 donation could help.
Dovydenas‟s marital problems presumably were resolved. She reconciled with her husband
and other family. She then reconsidered the donations she had made to TBS and sued TBS
to recover alleging undue influence.
On appeal, the circuit court in Dovydenas held that the first million dollar gift was proper on
the basis that Dovydenas‟s own motivation was the cause--although TBS did later
misrepresent the effects of her donation. The court also refused to rescind the $80,000 in
donations, finding no undue influence in those specific instances. However, the court upheld
setting aside the $5 million donation based on fraudulent, influential statements made by
TBS to Dovydenas about what the gift‟s effects would be. The $500,000 gift was also set
aside, as resulting from misrepresentations about the donations‟ secular effects. The court
also found that efforts by TBS to silence Dovydenas and remove her from independent
advice significant.
person to transfer all his property on the pretext that if he did not his and his family‟s souls
would be lost, the Dodges‟ conduct amounted to undue influence. The court found a
confidential relationship existed. Also, the court found the Dodges‟ actions amounted to
undue influence--noting the isolation of the community and the continual pressure imposed
even after initial rejections by the son-in-law to transfer his property. The court also found
that the eight year delay did not, in these circumstances, constitute laches.
In Robert-Douglas v. Meares, 624 A.2d 405 (D.C. 1992), parishioners alleged that their
contributions were obtained through undue influence. The court reversed a lower court
ruling and found that evidence of repeated individualized threats of eternal damnation for
failure to contribute or increase contributions was relevant to the issue of whether undue
influence existed. Although general invocations from the pulpit on God‟s wrath could rarely,
if ever, be the basis of an undue influence action, the court found that continued, one-on-
one personal threats, made against vulnerable listeners may not be afforded First
Amendment protection and could sustain an action in undue influence.
One case particularly illustrative of the presumption of undue influence and defense against
the presumption is In Re The Bible Speaks, Dovydenas v. The Bible Speaks, 869 F.2d 628
(1st Cir. 1989) cert. denied 493 U.S. 816. Dovydenas was heir to a large estate valued at
over $19 million. The court record showed that beginning about 1984, Dovydenas became
increasingly interested in a ministry operated by Carl Stevens called The Bible Speaks
(TBS). Stevens and Dovydenas began personal discussions in the mid-1980s, resulting in
Dovydenas donating one million dollar to TBS. Stevens advised Dovydenas that he hoped
her donation would prove to cure a TBS official of his migraine headaches. Stevens later lied
and told Dovydenas that the gift had cured the migraines.
Believing that her donations had the power to cause temporal events, Dovydenas
considered making another substantial contribution. Stevens then informed Dovydenas of a
TBS pastor, restrained in Romania and probably suffering. He told her that her
contemplated gift of $5 million would secure the pastor‟s release. Dovydenas made the $5
million donation Stevens told her not to inform her family or others about it. Three days
later, the pastor returned and Dovydenas was led to believe that her gift was the catalyst --
even though the pastor had been released before the $5 million donation was executed.
In 1985, Dovydenas contributed approximately $80,000 to TBS during this period, she was
also persuaded by Stevens to replace her attorney, accountant, and stockbroker with
individuals associated with TBS. A new will was prepared for Dovydenas, leaving all to TBS
with the exception of some jewelry and the minimum required by law to her husband.
Dovydenas told Stevens that she was experiencing marital problems in 1985, and she asked
whether another gift would solve her problems. Stevens responded by suggesting a
$500,000 donation could help.
Dovydenas‟s marital problems presumably were resolved. She reconciled with her husband
and other family. She then reconsidered the donations she had made to TBS and sued TBS
to recover alleging undue influence.
On appeal, the circuit court in Dovydenas held that the first million dollar gift was proper on
the basis that Dovydenas‟s own motivation was the cause--although TBS did later
misrepresent the effects of her donation. The court also refused to rescind the $80,000 in
donations, finding no undue influence in those specific instances. However, the court upheld
setting aside the $5 million donation based on fraudulent, influential statements made by
TBS to Dovydenas about what the gift‟s effects would be. The $500,000 gift was also set
aside, as resulting from misrepresentations about the donations‟ secular effects. The court
also found that efforts by TBS to silence Dovydenas and remove her from independent
advice significant.
