Editing Undue influence (section)

== Presumption ==
Because of the secrecy and tactics leveraged by an influencer, direct evidence of wrongdoing is often impossible for the contestant of a will to produce.<ref name=":5">{{Citation|title=Chapman v. Varela|date=July 20, 2009|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17034047916750719761&hl=en&as_sdt=6,32&scilib=1025&scioq=shifting|volume=213|pages=1109|access-date=2021-12-12}}</ref> Access to the individual is typically controlled by the influencer so that friends and family are unable to observe the perpetrator engaging in manipulation, thus a challenger is often unable to provide direct evidence. In an effort to address this substantial power distinction, many states allow for the [[Burden of proof (law)|burden of proof]] to be shifted to the alleged influencer if certain requirements are satisfied.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":5" /> Jurisdictions vary as to the requirements, but in general, the burden is shifted when the combination of a confidential or [[Fiduciary|fiduciary relationship]] with the donor and suspicious circumstances are found.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":5" /> Such circumstances include:

* Old age and weakened physical or mental condition of the testator
* Lack of consideration of the bequest
* Unnatural or unjust disposition of the property
* Participation of the beneficiary in procuring the gift
* Domination or control over the donor by the beneficiary
* Secrecy, concealment, or failure to disclose the gift<ref name=":5" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Law section|url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=15610.70.&lawCode=WIC|access-date=2021-12-12|website=leginfo.legislature.ca.gov}}</ref>
Once shifted, the proponent of the contested will is tasked with rebutting the presumption.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":5" /> The alleged influencer is required to prove that the [[testator]] made the will of their own volition, and was not under any influence at the time it was executed.<ref name=":1" />