In re Henderson, 80 N.Y.2d 388 (1992)
An inference of undue influence may arise, warranting a hearing, when an attorney benefits substantially from a will, even if the attorney did not draft the will, especially when independent counsel’s review was limited.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a hearing was warranted on a claim of undue influence in a will contest. The testatrix’s sister challenged the will, arguing undue influence by the testatrix’s long-time attorney, who was a primary beneficiary, even though he didn’t draft the will. The attorney advised the testatrix to seek independent counsel, but the drafted will heavily favored the attorney based on a memo he provided. The court held that while the Putnam inference doesn’t automatically apply when the attorney-legatee didn’t draft the will, the circumstances, including the limited independent review and the substantial bequest, justified a hearing on the undue influence claim.
Facts
Christine Henderson asked her attorney and financial advisor, Irvin Husin, to draft a will naming him and his family as major beneficiaries. Husin declined, citing ethical concerns, and suggested Henderson contact the Nassau County Bar Association for a referral. Husin provided Henderson with a memo outlining her assets, potential beneficiaries (including himself), and suggesting a bequest for her sister. Henderson retained Martin Weinstein, who drafted the will based primarily on Husin’s memo and a brief meeting with Henderson. Weinstein did not thoroughly question Henderson about the large bequest to Husin or the disinheritance of her sister.
Procedural History
Henderson’s sister objected to the will’s admission to probate, alleging fraud and undue influence. The Surrogate’s Court initially ordered a hearing. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the objection, finding no triable issue of fact. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the allegations in the objectant’s motion papers were sufficient to raise a triable question of fact on her claim of fraud and undue influence, even though the attorney-legatee did not draft the will.
Holding
Yes, because under the specific circumstances, including the limited independent review by the drafting attorney and the size of the bequest to the attorney-legatee coupled with the near disinheritance of the testatrix’s sister, a hearing on the claim of undue influence was warranted.
Court’s Reasoning
The court acknowledged the Matter of Putnam rule, which infers undue influence when an attorney drafts a will in which they are a beneficiary. However, the court declined to extend this inference automatically to cases where the attorney-legatee did not draft the will. The court emphasized a testator’s freedom to bequeath property as they wish. However, the court distinguished this case based on the specific facts. While Henderson retained independent counsel, Weinstein relied heavily on Husin’s memo and did not independently explore the reasons for the disproportionate bequest or the disinheritance of the sister. “Consequently, it could be inferred that Henderson did not receive the benefit of counselling by an independent attorney and that her will was essentially the indirect product of her discussions and relationship with Husin.” The court quoted Ten Eyck v Whitbeck, 156 NY 341, 353 stating that, “[W]here a fiduciary relationship exists between parties, ‘transactions between them are scrutinized with extreme vigilance’”. Because Husin benefitted substantially while occupying a position of trust, and the independent counsel’s involvement was minimal, the court found sufficient grounds to warrant a hearing on the undue influence claim. The court emphasized the risk of undue persuasion in attorney-client relationships, justifying judicial inquiry, especially where independent counsel’s intervention was limited. The court noted the size of the bequest to Husin (approximately 47% of the $1 million estate) and the exclusion of the testatrix’s sister as further justification for the hearing.