Undue influence in the context of Schrader v Schrader

Published on

Charities that have been involved in undue influence cases will be well aware that undue influence is notoriously difficult to establish in the context of a will. However, much like buses, successful undue influence claims seem to have all come at once in recent months.

It is well known that undue influence is notoriously difficult to establish in the context of a will. Charities that have been involved in undue influence cases in their capacity as beneficiaries will already know that successful cases of this kind are extremely rare, most notably because the main witness is, of course, dead. Providing evidence about whether that person has been unduly influenced is therefore particularly difficult. In cases of this kind there needs to be evidence of coercion, which in itself is not easy to prove; persuasion or preying on somebody’s vulnerable or generous nature is simply not enough.

However, much like buses, successful undue influence claims seem to have all come at once in recent months. The most widely talked about of these is Schrader v Schrader. In this case Mrs Schrader was a 98 year old widow who had two sons, Nick and Bill. In 2006 she made a will leaving her house, which was the main asset of her estate, to Nick only and her residuary estate (which amounted to virtually nothing) to both Nick and Bill. Under the provisions of her previous will she had divided her estate between her two sons equally.

Despite the absence of any direct evidence of coercion, the court inferred that the testatrix’s execution of the will must have been the result of undue influence by Nick. What makes this case unusual is that there was not one particular factor or example of coercion that led to the court’s decision. Rather it was an accumulation of peculiar facts and circumstances which persuaded the court that undue influence had been present, such as Nick’s forceful personality, his involvement in the preparation of the will (combined with an attempt to cover this up in his evidence), and the testatrix’s vulnerability. Nick’s personality appeared to be the nail in his coffin, with the court referring to him as “a forceful man with a forceful presence”.

The court in Schrader appear to have waived the requirement of coercion. While this hints that undue influence cases are becoming easier to prove, not all cases will have an individual such as Nick involved! What the case does reinforce is how important the parties’ characters and personalities are to the courts when reaching a conclusion. It is yet unclear as to whether more successful undue influence cases will follow but it is certainly an area of the law that charities should keep an eye on.

How can we help you?

If you would like to discuss any issues raised by this article, please contact Lucy Howard on 01603 693298 or lucy.howard@mills-reeve.com.

Mills & Reeve Sites navigation
A tabbed collection of Mills & Reeve sites.
Sites
My Mills & Reeve navigation
Subscribe to, or manage your My Mills & Reeve account.
My M&R
Register or login

Register or login Get all the benefits of MyM&R but registering or logging in ulla vehicula mauris mattis hendrerit fermentum. Etiam placerat hendrerit dapibus. Praesent ligula felis, eleifend sed odio quis, feugiat eros. Aliquam vitae felis fermentum, posuere nulla ut, maximus magna.

Staff intranet
Log in to the intranet
Client extranet
Log in to the extranet