Matter of Estate of Davenport
346 N.W.2d 530 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim of undue influence cannot survive summary judgment when it is supported only by evidence of a beneficiary's opportunity to influence the testator and an unequal distribution in the will. More than a scintilla of evidence is required to show that the beneficiary had a disposition to influence and that such influence was actually exerted to overcome the testator's free will.
Facts:
- In early November 1972, Jean Marie Christensen and her husband visited her mother, Esther Davenport, in Iowa for approximately four days.
- On November 29, 1972, several weeks after Christensen's visit, Esther Davenport went to her attorney and executed a will.
- The will bequeathed the entirety of Esther's probate estate, valued at approximately $500,000, to her daughter, Jean Marie Christensen.
- The will effectively disinherited Esther's son, John Albert Davenport, from the probate estate.
- Upon Esther's death, John Davenport received substantial assets that he had held in joint tenancy with his mother, which passed to him outside of the will.
Procedural Posture:
- John Albert Davenport filed a petition in the trial court to set aside the will of his mother, Esther Davenport.
- Jean Marie Christensen, the will's proponent and executor, filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed Davenport's petition.
- Davenport (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Iowa Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling.
- Davenport (appellant) sought further review from 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 a will contestant create a genuine issue of material fact on a claim of undue influence by presenting evidence of the testator's susceptibility and the beneficiary's opportunity to influence, when the only evidence for disposition to influence and causation is the unequal distribution in the will itself?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Larson
No. A will contestant fails to create a genuine issue of material fact for undue influence by showing only opportunity and an unequal result. To establish undue influence, a party must prove four elements: (1) susceptibility to influence, (2) opportunity to influence, (3) disposition to influence, and (4) a result clearly showing the effect of influence. While John Davenport may have minimally established susceptibility and opportunity through his mother's condition and his sister's visit, he presented no direct evidence of Jean Christensen's disposition to exert wrongful influence. An unnatural distribution can be considered, but it is not sufficient on its own, especially here where John received substantial non-probate assets. Allowing a claim to proceed on mere suspicion, speculation, and opportunity would give factfinders a 'carte blanche to rewrite most wills' and undermine the testator's intent.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high evidentiary standard required to sustain a claim of undue influence in a will contest. The court's decision clarifies that circumstantial evidence of opportunity and an unequal inheritance, without more, is insufficient to survive a summary judgment motion. This ruling protects the testator's freedom of disposition by preventing disappointed heirs from forcing a trial based on mere suspicion or speculation. Future claimants must produce more concrete evidence showing that a beneficiary actively engaged in conduct equivalent to 'moral coercion' which directly caused the testator to make a will that did not reflect their true intent.
