Matter of Estate of Bayer
574 N.W.2d 667, 1998 WL 17991 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To set aside a will on the grounds of undue influence, the contestant must prove by a solid foundation of established facts, not mere suspicion or conjecture, that the influence amounted to moral coercion which substituted the influencer's will for that of the testator at the very time the will was executed.
Facts:
- Luella Bayer, a 75-year-old childless widow, died with an estate valued at approximately $1.1 million.
- Bayer's 1991 will, drafted by her attorney William Kurth, left substantial portions of her estate to her friend Larry Schenkelberg, her hired man Robert Janssen and his wife, and her farm tenants Gerald and Mary Kay Tigges.
- Schenkelberg was a long-time friend who visited Bayer several times a week, advised her on farm business, and gave her gifts.
- Robert Janssen lived on one of Bayer's farms, visited her almost daily, and was described by Bayer as being 'like a son to her.'
- Gerald Tigges was a close friend and tenant who frequently discussed farm business with Bayer.
- The plaintiffs are Bayer's 15 nieces, nephews, grandnieces, and grandnephews, who were her only surviving relatives but had infrequent contact with her.
- Bayer met alone with her attorney to discuss and execute her will; none of the beneficiaries were present or involved in its preparation.
Procedural Posture:
- Luella Bayer's 1991 will was admitted to probate following her death.
- Plaintiffs (Bayer's relatives) filed an action in Iowa district court to set aside the will, alleging undue influence by the defendants (the beneficiaries).
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, finding the will was the product of undue influence.
- The defendants filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).
- The district court granted the defendants' JNOV motion, setting aside the jury verdict and upholding the will.
- The plaintiffs appealed the JNOV ruling to the Iowa Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, siding with the plaintiffs.
- The defendants then sought, and were granted, further review by the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does substantial evidence support a jury's finding that a will was the result of undue influence when the testator, although friendly with the non-relative beneficiaries who received the bulk of her estate, was mentally astute, independent, and executed the will alone with her long-time attorney?
Opinions:
Majority - McGiverin, Chief Justice
No, substantial evidence does not support the jury's finding. To set aside a will for undue influence, a contestant must prove all four elements: (1) the testator was susceptible to undue influence; (2) the defendant had an opportunity to exercise it; (3) the defendant had a disposition to influence unduly; and (4) the will's result was clearly the effect of undue influence. The plaintiffs failed to provide substantial evidence on these elements. The record shows Mrs. Bayer was an astute, independent, and mentally stable woman, not susceptible to the kind of influence that amounts to moral coercion. Evidence from her attorney and doctor confirmed her independence. The defendants' actions were characterized as kindness and friendship, which do not inherently prove a disposition to unduly influence. Finally, given Bayer's close relationships with the defendants and distant ones with the plaintiffs, the testamentary distribution was natural rather than clearly the result of undue influence. The evidence amounted to mere suspicion and speculation, which is insufficient to overturn a solemn testament.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high evidentiary burden required to prove undue influence in a will contest. The court's decision clarifies that an 'unnatural' disposition of property, such as favoring non-relatives over relatives, does not by itself create a jury question on undue influence, especially when the testator's relationships support the distribution. It distinguishes acts of kindness, friendship, and assistance from the 'moral coercion' necessary to invalidate a will. This precedent protects a testator's intent from being overturned based on circumstantial evidence that amounts only to speculation by disappointed heirs.
