Brief Fact Summary. A lady resided in a maternity home for woman who were pregnant out-of-wedlock. While in the maternity home, various individuals attempted to convince her to put her child up for adoption. She finally consented, but brought suit thereafter alleging she was unduly influenced by the agents and employees of the maternity home.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. "[A] finding of undue influence is justified only where the actor's free agency and will have been destroyed and subverted to the extent that his act, instead of expressing his own will, expresses the will of the person exerting the influence."
It is true that exerted influence cannot be branded as undue merely because it is persuasive and effective, and that the law does not condemn all persuasion, entreaty, cajolery, importunity, intercession, argument and solicitation.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Was the Plaintiff unduly influenced by the Defendant's agents and employees to put her child up for adoption?
Held. The court first observes "[w]hat constitutes 'undue influence' depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case, viewed in the light of applicable principles of law." Further, "a finding of undue influence is justified only where the actor's free agency and will have been destroyed and subverted to the extent that his act, instead of expressing his own will, expresses the will of the person exerting the influence." No specific definition of undue influence exists. The law does not "condemn all persuasion, Entreaty, cajolery, importunity, intercession, argument and solicitation."
• The court concedes "that calling to the attention of an unwed mother the considerations which tend to show that her best interest, and that of her child, would best be served by placement of the child for adoption cannot be branded as undue influence, even though she is thereby induced to give up her child." However, the court recognizes this case is different because the testimony demonstrates the existence of "excessive persuasion."
• Witnesses testified that the Plaintiff was both shy and reluctant to discuss her personal problems. Additionally, a lot persuasion was done during the days immediately after the Plaintiff gave birth. During this time period, it is well known that a woman is "usually emotionally distraught and peculiarly vulnerable to efforts, well-meaning or unscrupulous, to persuade her to give up her child." Further, "[i]mmediately following plaintiff's announcement that, contrary to the expectations of Mrs. Burns, she intended to keep her son, she was subjected to an intensive campaign, extending over a five-day period, designed to convince her to give up her baby, rather than to insure that her decision, whatever it might be, would be based on a consideration of all relevant factors." Additionally, "[w]hat Mrs. Burns described as a discussion of the 'pros and cons' consisted entirely of an endless recital only of the 'cons'–a repetitive monologue of the reasons why plaintiff should not keep her child." Most disturbingly, "this concentrated assault on plaintiff's will came from a person to whom plaintiff was encouraged to look for guidance, a member of an organization to which plaintiff was undoubtedly indebted and on which, according to all the testimony, she was dependent for help in finding her employment and a place to live."
Discussion. It is very interesting to read this case alongside [Francois v. Francois] and see how another court analyzes undue influence.