Section 6.51 Undue Influence

• Library: Trusts and Powers 2013 Supp

D. (§6.51) Undue Influence

Missouri caselaw has long recognized that a trust may be set aside if it was created by means of undue influence. Kinney v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 143 S.W.2d 250 (Mo. 1940). Section 456.4-406, RSMo Supp. 2005, now expressly so provides—i.e., the “trust is void.” To succeed as a basis for invalidating a trust, the undue influence must be “that influence which, by force, coercion or overpersuasion destroys the free agency of the grantor.” In re Estate of Soper, 598 S.W.2d 528, 538 (Mo. App. S.D. 1980); accord Sebree v. Rosen, 349 S.W.2d 865 (Mo. 1961). In addition, the undue influence must have been operative at the time of execution to serve as a basis for invalidating the trust, although “the presence of the beneficiary or even the exertion of his influence at the exact moment of execution need not be shown.” Simmons v. Inman, 471 S.W.2d 203, 206–07 (Mo. 1971); Creek v. Union Nat’l Bank in Kansas City, 266 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. 1954).

Although the factual situations that may lead to a claim of undue influence are virtually limitless, there is one essential element that must be alleged and proved in every instance. The essential element is that the influencer, the person alleged to have exercised undue influence, received a direct benefit as a result of the influence. Estate of Anderson v. Day, 921 S.W.2d 35, 38 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996). In addition, the benefit received must be an “economic” or pecuniary benefit, and it must be a “substantial benefit”; a potential, speculative, unknown, or unidentified benefit will not suffice. Burke v. Kehr, 876 S.W.2d 718, 722 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994).

The additional elements that must be pleaded and proved to establish a submissible case of undue influence depend on whether the action is predicated on the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship between the...