Our recent article on Will contests in Arizona cited a 1966 Arizona Supreme Court case, In Re Estate of McCauley, that for more than a half-century has helped courts determine whether, at the time a Will was signed, the maker of that Will was unduly and improperly influenced by another person.
For individuals who are contemplating the challenge or defense of a Will executed in Arizona, the importance and durability of the McCauley decision warrant a more in-depth look at that case.
Sordid Background. The case involved a lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of the Last Will and Testament of Mrs. Bond Sneed McCauley, who died in Phoenix in 1959.
Bond was married three times. Her first and second marriages, which ended in divorce, produced a son, Arthur, and a daughter, Lillian.
In her second divorce, the property settlement included the creation of an irrevocable trust that provided income to Bond for the rest of her life. Upon her death, the income would be divided equally between her two children.
In November 1956, while still married to her second husband, Bond met Cleyburn McCauley in Houston, where McCauley had recently relocated from Oklahoma, leaving a failed business, his third wife, and two children.
Almost immediately, McCauley sought to profit from his relationship with Bond. As the Supreme Court’s opinion notes, “Long before they were married, [Bond] supplied McCauley with funds with which to take her out. At one time she loaned him $750. At another time she co-signed a $1,000 note with him for his benefit. He tried to acquire her automobile worth $2,000 for $100 and endeavored to sell to the trustees of her trust a $7,100 note for $7,000 when in fact the note had been discounted by $2,500.”
Within two weeks of her divorce, Bond began to see McCauley frequently.
In 1957, McCauley filed for divorce from his wife in Oklahoma. On October 28 of that year, McCauley’s divorce decree was issued, and, on that same day, McCauley and Bond were married.
The ensuing drama, deceptions, gold-digging and legal maneuvering are described in vivid detail in the Arizona Supreme Court opinion. We will not attempt here to describe it further, except to note that, in the first year of their marriage, McCauley hired an attorney to (a) break the trust that Bond had set up for the benefit of her two children and (b) draw up a new Will for Bond.
Bond signed the new Will in 1958, while she was hospitalized. The new Will left half of her estate to McCauley. (In the trial that followed, there was testimony that McCauley arranged to receive only half because, his attorney advised, there would be a better chance of defending a Will contest if McCauley were given less than the whole, leaving something for Bond’s children.)
She died a year later.
Legal Challenge. McCauley, acting as the personal representative of Bond’s estate, submitted the new Will in probate.
Bond’s ex-husbands, each acting as guardian ad litem for Arthur and Lillian, filed with the Court a petition opposing probate of the Will, claiming that the document was the result of McCauley’s undue influence over Bond.
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge found that the purported Will was procured by fraudulent representations and undue influence by McCauley and entered judgment in favor of Arthur and Lillian.
McCauley appealed, but the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Fred C. Struckmeyer stated, “[From] the beginning, McCauley dominated this woman, who admittedly had a weakness for men, to his own financial benefit. It taxes my credulity far beyond the breaking point to believe that this domination did not amount to undue influence.”
8-Factor Test. In its decision, the Court provided a list of eight factors to help determine whether a party contesting a Will has established that the Will was procured through undue influence.
Allowing for additional circumstances to be considered, the enumerated factors specify whether:
Current-day Will contests are also influenced by other contents of the Court’s McCauley opinion, such as the following:
Conclusion. As with all complex legal challenges, a potential claim of undue influence must be evaluated with respect to the case’s specific facts and circumstances.
McCauley’s eight-factor test provides a useful set of guidelines that, with the perspective of an experienced estate controversy attorney, a potential challenger can use to assess the potential merits of a Will contest.
