The Three-Part Test for Undue Influence in Pennsylvania 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, a person challenging a will based on undue influence must establish three things:

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? In In re Klionsky, 240 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2020), the Superior Court clarified that the standard for challenging lifetime gifts is lower. For inter vivos transfers, the challenger need only establish a confidential relationship. The weakened intellect element is not required to shift the burden. Once a confidential relationship is shown, the burden shifts to the recipient to prove the gift was made freely and voluntarily.

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. Klionsky confirms that these transfers are subject to meaningful judicial scrutiny even when the challenger cannot prove cognitive impairment.

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, a will contest must be filed within one year after the will is admitted to probate.

Contact our office to discuss your situation.