Document Type

Article

Publication Title

American Journal of Trial Advocacy

Publication Date

2023

Volume

47

First Page

23

Abstract

(Excerpt)

The utility of the doctrine of undue influence has been declining for several decades because of its inclusion of the element of vulnerability or, put another way, inquiry into the mind of the one allegedly being influenced. I argue that the courts’ inquiry into the mind of the influencee to determine whether this person was vulnerable is not a useful construct as an element of the doctrine. This Article addresses three contexts in which assessing one’s vulnerability is problematic: (1) in the contract formation process occurring in the general population (meaning not within a high-control group), such as the signing of an arbitration agreement in Martinez-Gonzalez v. Elkhorn Packing Co.; (2) in disputes resolving whether testamentary bequests went to the rightful beneficiaries of wills; and (3) in contract formation processes occurring in high control groups, such as in the case of D’Onofrio v. Mother of God with Eternal Life. Because the traditional doctrine of undue influence involves the courts’ assessments of the claimant’s4 state of mind, this Article uses the term “vulnerability” to refer to the analysis courts use to determine whether the claimant was free from coercive control.

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.