Undue Influence in PA Will Contests

When a family member suspects that a loved one’s will does not reflect their true wishes, Pennsylvania law provides a path to challenge it. The legal framework for these challenges was established by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in In re Estate of Clark, 461 Pa. 52, 334 A.2d 628 (Pa. 1975), and it remains the starting point for every undue influence claim in the Commonwealth.

The Three-Part Test

Under Clark and the cases applying it, a person challenging a will based on undue influence must establish three things by clear and convincing evidence:

First, the person who benefits under the will had a confidential relationship with the person who made it. A confidential relationship exists where one person has placed trust and confidence in another who is in a position to exercise dominance or influence. This commonly arises between a caretaker and an elderly person, an adult child who manages a parent’s finances, or a professional advisor.

Second, the person in that confidential relationship received a substantial benefit under the will. This is usually straightforward: they inherited a disproportionate share of the estate.

Third, the person who made the will was of weakened intellect at the time. This does not require a finding of legal incompetence. It means the testator was in a condition that made them susceptible to influence, whether due to age, illness, medication, grief, isolation, or cognitive decline.

The Burden Shift

What makes the Clark test powerful is what happens once all three elements are shown. The burden shifts to the person defending the will to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the will was not the product of undue influence. This is a high standard, and in practice it means that a well-prepared undue influence challenge with strong facts on all three elements puts significant pressure on the other side.

Lifetime Gifts: A Different Standard

The Clark framework applies to will contests. But what about gifts made during a person’s lifetime? The standard there is lower. In Weir by Gasper v. Estate of Ciao, 521 Pa. 491, 556 A.2d 819 (1989), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that where a confidential relationship exists, the law presumes the transaction voidable unless the person defending it affirmatively shows that it was fair under all of the circumstances and beyond the reach of suspicion. The weakened intellect element that a will contest requires is not part of that showing. Where the person who received the gift did not personally hold the confidential relationship with the donor, the court weighs the relationships of the parties together with the surrounding circumstances. In Estate of Keiper, 308 Pa. Super. 82, 454 A.2d 31 (1982), that combination shifted the burden to the recipient to prove the transfers were the free and voluntary act of the donor.

This distinction matters in practice. Financial exploitation of elderly individuals often takes the form of lifetime transfers, including changes to bank accounts, deeds, and beneficiary designations, rather than changes to a will. Keiper is a plain example. A son-in-law holding a power of attorney moved nearly all of the decedent’s liquid assets into joint accounts with his own wife while the decedent was terminally ill and recently widowed, wiping out the bequests in the decedent’s will. The court put the burden on the recipient to justify the transfers, and she could not carry it.

What to Watch For

Undue influence cases rarely involve a single dramatic event. They typically involve a pattern: gradual isolation of the elderly person from family and friends, increasing control over finances and daily decisions, and changes to estate plans that benefit the person exercising control. By the time the family learns what happened, the damage is often done.

If you suspect that a loved one’s will or estate plan was the product of undue influence, or if you are concerned about ongoing financial exploitation, time is important. Under 20 Pa.C.S. section 908, an appeal from the register’s decree admitting a will to probate must be filed within one year of the decree. Do not assume a full year is available. On the petition of a party in interest, the court may limit the time for appeal to three months.

Contact our office to discuss your situation.

Legal and factual content on this page was last verified: Aug. 2026. If you are reading this significantly after that date, confirm key provisions with current statute text or contact our office.