Examples of Undue Influence in Florida

Undue influence is one of the most common grounds for contesting a will or trust in Florida. It occurs when a person in a position of trust or authority over a vulnerable individual substitutes their own wishes for those of the testator or settlor. Florida Statutes Section 733.107 governs the burden-shifting framework that courts use to evaluate these claims. Understanding real-world examples of undue influence helps families recognize when a loved one's estate plan may have been corrupted by someone acting in their own self-interest rather than honoring the decedent's true wishes.

How Florida Law Defines Undue Influence

Under Florida law, undue influence must rise to a level that destroys the free agency of the person making the will or trust. Mere persuasion, requests, or even nagging does not meet the legal standard. The influence must amount to over-persuasion, duress, force, coercion, or artful and fraudulent contrivances that overcome the willpower of the testator. Florida courts have repeatedly emphasized that the influence must be operating at the time the document is executed, not merely at some earlier or later point.

The presumption of undue influence arises under F.S. 733.107 when the contestant demonstrates three elements: (1) the alleged influencer was a substantial beneficiary, (2) the alleged influencer had a confidential relationship with the testator, and (3) the alleged influencer was active in procuring the contested document. Once all three elements are shown, the burden shifts to the proponent of the will to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that undue influence did not occur.

Caregiver Undue Influence

One of the most frequently litigated scenarios in Florida probate courts involves a caregiver who gradually takes control over an elderly or incapacitated person's affairs and directs the estate plan in their own favor. In a typical case, an aging parent becomes dependent on one adult child or a hired caregiver for daily needs such as meals, medication management, transportation, and communication with the outside world. Over time, the caregiver begins to control who the parent sees, what information they receive, and ultimately what decisions they make about their estate.

For example, consider an elderly widow in Coral Gables who suffered from progressive cognitive decline. Her daughter moved into the home to provide care and gradually cut off contact between the mother and her other children. The daughter drove the mother to a new attorney — one the daughter selected — where a new will was executed leaving the entire estate to the daughter, disinheriting the other siblings who had been equal beneficiaries under the prior will. Florida courts have found these circumstances sufficient to raise a presumption of undue influence because the daughter was a substantial beneficiary, held a confidential relationship as caregiver, and was active in procuring the new will by selecting the attorney and arranging the appointment.

Isolation Tactics

Isolation is one of the strongest indicators of undue influence recognized by Florida courts. The influencer systematically removes the vulnerable person from their support network — family, friends, longtime advisors, and religious community — leaving the victim entirely dependent on the influencer for social contact, information, and emotional support. Common isolation tactics seen in Florida cases include:

Screening phone calls and mail so the testator cannot communicate freely with family members or their own attorney;
Relocating the testator away from their longtime home and community to a new location controlled by the influencer;
Dismissing trusted advisors such as a longtime attorney, accountant, or financial planner and replacing them with professionals chosen by the influencer;
Spreading false information about family members to the testator, such as telling the parent that their other children do not care about them or have said negative things;
Controlling access to medical care and selectively sharing or withholding information about the testator's health condition; and
Monitoring or preventing visits from family members and friends by claiming the testator is resting, not feeling well, or does not wish to see visitors.

In the Florida appellate decision Carpenter v. Carpenter, the court examined a situation where an adult child systematically isolated an aging parent from other family members while simultaneously arranging for changes to the parent's estate plan. The court noted that isolation, combined with the other elements of the presumption, supported a finding of undue influence.

Sudden or Dramatic Changes to an Estate Plan

Florida courts pay close attention to the timing and circumstances of changes to a will or trust. A sudden, dramatic departure from a longstanding estate plan — particularly one that benefits a person in a position of influence — is a significant red flag. Examples include:

A testator who maintained a will dividing their estate equally among their children for decades suddenly executes a new will leaving everything to one child shortly after that child becomes the primary caregiver;
A new will or trust amendment executed shortly after a diagnosis of dementia, Alzheimer's disease, or other cognitive impairment;
An estate plan change made while the testator is hospitalized, medicated, or recovering from surgery;
The addition of a non-family member — such as a romantic partner, neighbor, or paid caregiver — as a major beneficiary when prior versions of the estate plan did not include that person; and
Disinheritance of a family member with whom the testator had a close, loving relationship, without any apparent reason or falling out.

The Florida Supreme Court in In re Estate of Carpenter recognized that an unexplained departure from a prior testamentary scheme is relevant evidence of undue influence, particularly when combined with evidence of a confidential relationship and active procurement.

Active Procurement: What It Looks Like in Practice

Active procurement is one of the three elements required to raise the presumption of undue influence under Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court in Carpenter v. Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1971), identified several factors that courts consider when determining whether someone was active in procuring a will or trust:

Presence at the execution of the document — the alleged influencer was physically present when the will or trust was signed;
Selection of the attorney — the influencer chose the lawyer who drafted the document, particularly if the testator had a longtime attorney who was not used;
Payment of attorney fees — the influencer paid for the drafting of the estate plan;
Providing instructions to the attorney — the influencer communicated the testator's supposed wishes to the drafting attorney rather than allowing the testator to do so directly;
Knowledge of the contents before execution — the influencer knew what was in the will before it was signed;
Safekeeping of the document — the influencer took possession of the executed will or trust; and
Arranging for witnesses — the influencer selected or provided the witnesses to the will execution.

Not every factor needs to be present. Florida courts evaluate the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the alleged influencer's involvement rises to the level of active procurement.

Romantic Partner or New Spouse Influence

Another common scenario in Florida undue influence cases involves a new romantic partner or late-in-life spouse who quickly becomes the primary beneficiary of an elderly person's estate. In these cases, the relationship often develops rapidly, and the new partner assumes a caregiving role that gives them significant control over the vulnerable person's daily life and decisions. The estate plan is then changed to benefit the new partner at the expense of the decedent's children or other longtime beneficiaries.

Florida courts have scrutinized these situations carefully, particularly when the new partner accompanied the testator to attorney meetings, selected the attorney, or was involved in communicating the testator's wishes. The combination of a new confidential relationship, substantial benefit under the revised estate plan, and active involvement in procuring the changes is precisely the pattern that triggers the presumption of undue influence under F.S. 733.107.

Financial Advisor or Professional Influence

Undue influence in Florida is not limited to family members or romantic partners. Professionals who occupy positions of trust — including financial advisors, accountants, attorneys, and even clergy — can exert undue influence over a vulnerable person's estate plan. When a professional advisor is named as a beneficiary of a client's will or trust, Florida courts view the arrangement with heightened suspicion, particularly if the professional was involved in the preparation of the document.

Florida's Rules Regulating the Florida Bar impose restrictions on attorneys who draft estate planning documents in which they or their relatives are named as beneficiaries. Under Rule 4-1.8(c), a lawyer is generally prohibited from soliciting a substantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, unless the lawyer is related to the client. Violations of this rule can serve as evidence of undue influence in a probate proceeding.

Red Flags That May Indicate Undue Influence

If you are concerned that a loved one's estate plan may have been the product of undue influence, watch for the following warning signs:

The testator became increasingly dependent on one person for care, companionship, and decision-making;
Family members or longtime friends were gradually excluded from the testator's life;
The testator's estate plan was changed late in life, particularly after a decline in cognitive or physical health;
A new attorney was used to draft the estate plan, and the new attorney was selected by the alleged influencer rather than the testator;
The testator could not explain or did not appear to understand the changes made to their estate plan;
The alleged influencer controlled the testator's finances, managed their bank accounts, or had access to their assets;
The testator expressed fear of the alleged influencer or appeared anxious or submissive in their presence;
The alleged influencer was present during estate planning meetings or during the execution of the will; and
The new estate plan is inconsistent with the testator's longstanding values, relationships, and expressed wishes.

How Florida Courts Evaluate Undue Influence Claims

Florida courts use a structured analysis when evaluating undue influence claims. The process begins with the contestant establishing standing under F.S. 733.109 and filing a timely challenge. The court then examines whether the contestant has presented sufficient evidence to raise the presumption of undue influence by proving the three required elements: substantial benefit, confidential relationship, and active procurement.

If the presumption is raised, the burden shifts to the proponent of the will to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that undue influence did not occur. The proponent may present evidence such as testimony from the drafting attorney that the testator appeared competent and expressed their wishes independently, evidence that the testator had rational reasons for the estate plan changes, or medical records showing the testator was of sound mind.

The trier of fact — whether a judge or jury — considers the totality of the circumstances, including the testator's physical and mental condition, the nature and quality of the relationship between the testator and the alleged influencer, whether the testator had independent advice, and whether the estate plan is consistent with the testator's known wishes and values.

Florida Case Law on Undue Influence

Several landmark Florida decisions have shaped the law of undue influence in the state:

Carpenter v. Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1971) — The Florida Supreme Court established the factors for determining active procurement and the burden-shifting framework that remains the foundation of Florida undue influence law.
In re Estate of Kester, 529 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) — The court examined the role of isolation and dependency in establishing undue influence, noting that cutting off the testator from family and friends is a hallmark of undue influence.
Hack v. Janes, 878 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) — The court addressed the relationship between lack of capacity and undue influence, noting that a person with diminished capacity is more susceptible to undue influence, even if they technically retain testamentary capacity.

What to Do If You Suspect Undue Influence

If you believe that a loved one's will or trust was the product of undue influence, time is critical. Under Florida law, the deadline to contest a will after receiving the Notice of Administration can be as short as 20 days under F.S. 733.212. Failing to act within the statutory deadline may permanently bar your claim. Gathering evidence early — including medical records, financial records, witness statements, and documentation of the testator's relationships and communications — is essential to building a strong case.

An experienced Florida will contest attorney can evaluate the facts of your situation, advise you on the strength of your claim, and take the necessary steps to preserve your rights within the applicable deadlines.

Contact a Florida Undue Influence Attorney

If you suspect that a loved one's estate plan was procured through undue influence, the Law Offices of Albert Goodwin can help. Our firm handles undue influence, will contests, trust contests, and breach of fiduciary duty cases throughout Florida. We understand the urgency of these matters and the strict deadlines imposed by Florida law. Call us at 786-522-1411 or email us at [email protected] to schedule a consultation at our office at 121 Alhambra Plz #1000, Coral Gables, FL 33134.