Board Certified
in Geropsychology
One of the nation’s leading experts in the areas of forensic neuropsychology and geropsychology, Dr. Stacey Wood has vast experience as an expert witness in California and nationwide.
Years of Experience
Expert Analysis
Trials and Depositions
Board Certified
in Geropsychology
One of the nation’s leading experts in the areas of forensic neuropsychology and geropsychology, Dr. Stacey Wood has vast experience as an expert witness in California and nationwide.
Years of Experience
Expert Analysis
Trials and Depositions
What Is Undue Influence Under California Law?
Under California law, UI or Undue Influence occurs when the senior is reasonably capable but is at risk due to various other factors. These can include cognitive decline, dependence, and/or isolation.
Sometimes Undue Influence is done by a stranger or a new person who perpetrates in the victim’s life. However, in most cases, Undue Influence occurred and it was often done by family members. Undue influence can take many forms: from isolating the victim by preventing them from speaking freely to trusted loved ones to put pressure on the victim about their financial choices.
California’s definition of undue influence received a makeover on January 1, 2014, with California Probate Code section 86 and California Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.70.
The California Welfare and Institutions Code define undue influence as “excessive persuasion that causes another person to act or refrain from acting by overcoming that person’s free will and results in inequity.”
The California Legislature felt the need to provide a clear definition of undue influence in California probate courts. Increasingly, court officials and attorneys depend on neuropsychologists like Dr. Stacey Wood to help make assessments, testify in court, and assist in investigations.
What Constitutes Undue Influence Under California Law?
There are certain behaviors that, when taken together, can be used to establish undue influence. These include:
-
The vulnerability of the victim: The victim is susceptible to undue influence because of mental or physical impairment, emotional distress, isolation, or dependence.
-
The Influencer’s Apparent Authority: The influencer has assumed a position of power or trust and uses it to exert undue influence over the victim.
-
The Suspect’s Actions: The suspect isolates the victim from friends and family, controls their finances, initiates changes in personal or property rights, or makes demands on them.
-
The Result of the Suspect’s Actions: The victim’s actions are not in their best interests and result in an unfair advantage to the influencer. This may be seen in economic consequences, divergence from a prior pattern or course of conduct, or the terms of a testamentary instrument.
Dr. Wood’s Undue Influence Experience
Attorneys in senior law and elder abuse are frequently dissuaded from bringing “gray” area cases before judges. These cases often have egregious outcomes, but they also might result in strong disagreement.
Nevertheless, the 2014 clarification of the Undue Influence law in California has improved petitioners’ capacity to organize information, craft arguments, and potentially persuade judges to review cases that may prove undue influence. This is often aided by psychologists who are knowledgeable in the field.
Dr. Stacey Wood is an undue influence legal professional and elder abuse expert. She has worked on well over 200 Adult Protective Services (APS) and fraud cases while working as a consultant in Los Angeles County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino Counties.
Additionally, Dr. Wood actively publishes research on financial elder abuse and fraud. Dr. Wood’s experience in the field can be especially valuable as she is capable of helping attorneys assemble a case to prove undue influence in court.
Get help on
your next case
Contact a proven undue influence expert for your next case.
Dr. Stacey Wood
My scholarly interests are in neuropsychology and decision-making from a lifespan development perspective. I am interested in how changes in the brain, emotion, and motivation interact across the lifespan to influence how we make decisions.
I am especially interested in taking theoretical work and applying it to everyday types of decisions. One such application is in the area of assessing the decision-making capacity of the courts.
Understanding cognitive mechanisms that may underlie specific types of legal decisions (i.e., testamentary, financial) can help us design better tools and be more effective as witnesses.
Why choose Dr. Wood for undue influence cases?
In California, proving undue influence is a difficult task for attorneys, especially where a particular family member is the apparent authority figure. Courts believe that individuals have sufficient mental capacity to execute their wishes. Thus, most Undue Influence cases are disregarded or dismissed due to a lack of evidence.
Difficult cases are, nonetheless, not impossible. In 2014, clarifications of the Undue Impact statute in Orange County and throughout California equipped petitioners with a significantly boosted capacity to persuasively argue their positions.
More than Just a Witness
When trying to create winning Undue Influence California cases, it is essential to speak with an informed and experienced California neuropsychology forensic expert, such as Dr. Stacey Wood. This step may turn a difficult case into a winning one.
Dr. Wood is a nationally-renowned expert on decisional capacity. By adding her to your team, your firm also gains someone who can assist in putting together a case for undue influence in California.
A Leading Voice on Undue Influence
Dr. Wood is a professor of psychology, an active researcher, and has also served as Lead Editor for the APA/ABA handbook on assessing older adults with diminished capacity for lawyers.
Dr. Wood is a leading voice in decisional capacity and undue influence on California cases throughout the Pacific Northwest. She maintains a continuing educational approach to these topics. This enables her to stay up-to-date with all of the most recent advancements in the area to provide evidence-based services to these cases.
Vital Courtroom Experience
Dr. Wood has experience presenting complex undue influence cases in her writing, reports, presentations, and testifying. She additionally provides retained services for several counties in California on elder issues and has served as an expert witness in cases nationwide.
Contact a proven undue influence expert for your next case.
Featured Information on Undue Influence
Decisional Capacity
Dr. Stacey Wood is one of the nation’s leading expert witnesses in the areas of decisional capacity and neuropsychology.
Elder Abuse
Dr. Stacey Wood is one of the nation’s leading experts on financial elder abuse and fraud.
Probate Conservatorship
Probate conservatorship proceedings in California, a judge appoints a conservator to care for another adult who cannot care for him/herself or his/her finances.
Testamentary Capacity
In California, the legal standard for creating a will has two components: the testator must be 18 years of age and of “sound mind,” which means possessing testamentary capacity.
Undue Influence in California: Extended Information
Generally, UI refers to a forceful dynamic between two individuals where one exerts “excessive persuasion” upon the other. This involves pressure on an individual that causes that person to act according to the wishes and for the benefit of the influencer, often in ways that oppose his or her own personal interests. This pressure can take place by way of harassment, threats, seclusion, or threats of isolation.
Frequently the influencer places him/herself between the individual and friends/loved ones. This makes the victim easier to coerce. Having the consultation of a reputable psychologist with “fraud in the family” experience can shed light on the matter.
Undue Influence California Law
Unfortunately, the impact of undue influence California usually expands beyond that of financial loss. The resultant stress and anxiety can trigger strong negative feelings like rage and despair. They can even take a physical and psychological toll on someone who was previously a strong and mentally healthy person.
The good news is, the 2014 clarifications of the Undue Influence law in Orange County and throughout California has considerably improved a petitioner’s capacity to build a winning case. Retaining a forensic psychologist with undue influence and capacity experience can further improve the odds of presenting a winning case.
California Probate Code 850
California Probate Code 850 is found in Division 2, Part 19 of the Probate Code regarding conveyance or transfer of property claimed to belong to the decedent or another person. It reads as follow:
(a) The following persons may file a petition requesting that the court make an order under this part:
(1) A guardian, conservator, or any claimant, in the following cases:
(A) Where the conservatee is bound by a contract in writing to convey real property or to transfer personal property, executed by the conservatee while competent or executed by the conservatee’s predecessor in interest, and the contract is one that can be specifically enforced.
(B) Where the minor has succeeded to the interest of a person bound by a contract in writing to convey real property or to transfer personal property, and the contract is one that can be specifically enforced.
(C) Where the guardian or conservator or the minor or conservatee is in possession of, or holds title to, real or personal property, and the property or some interest therein is claimed to belong to another.
(D) Where the minor or conservatee has a claim to real or personal property title to or possession of which is held by another.
(2) The personal representative or any interested person in any of the following cases:
(A) Where the decedent while living is bound by a contract in writing to convey real property or to transfer personal property and dies before making the conveyance or transfer and the decedent, if living, could have been compelled to make the conveyance or transfer.
(B) Where the decedent while living binds himself or herself or his or her personal representative by a contract in writing to convey real property or to transfer personal property upon or after his or her death and the contract is one which can be specifically enforced.
(C)Where the decedent died in possession of, or holding title to, real or personal property, and the property or some interest therein is claimed to belong to another.
(D) Where the decedent died having a claim to real or personal property, title to or possession of which is held by another.
(3) The trustee or any interested person in any of the following cases:
(A) Where the trustee is in possession of, or holds title to, real or personal property, and the property, or some interest, is claimed to belong to another.
(B) Where the trustee has a claim to real or personal property, title to or possession of which is held by another.
(C) Where the property of the trust is claimed to be subject to a creditor of the settlor of the trust.
(b) The petition shall set forth facts upon which the claim is based.
(Added by Stats. 2001, Ch. 49, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2002.)
850 Petition in California
Although these terms have different meanings, one way to understand their variance is that competency to stand trial is determined by a judge, while insanity is determined by a jury.
Ruth Lee Johnson, J.D., writing for Psychology Today explains “Competency is determined by whether the defendant can understand the nature and consequences of the criminal proceedings against him. Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that the defendant must (1) have the sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; and (2) he or she must have a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceeding against him or her.
Meanwhile, the definition of insanity varies between states, and concerns the criminal acts allegedly committed by the defendant. (Read this blog post to learn about the different definitions of insanity.) For example, some states determine insanity by whether the defendant understood the nature and quality of his acts or did not know that his acts were wrong. Other states have different definitions. Some states do not have an insanity defense at all.”
Contact neuropsychologist and forensic expert Dr. Stacey Wood to better understand how she can help you and your client.
California Probate Code Section 86
Another important Undue Influence California code is Probate Code, Section 15800, which states:
Except to the extent that the trust instrument otherwise provides or where the joint action of the settlor and all beneficiaries is required, during the time that a trust is revocable and the person holding the power to revoke the trust is competent:
(a) The person holding the power to revoke, and not the beneficiary, has the rights afforded beneficiaries under this division.
(b) The duties of the trustee are owed to the person holding the power to revoke.
(Enacted by Stats. 1990, Ch. 79.)
California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15610.70
California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15610.70 was enacted by the California Legislature in 2013 and the text serves as the definition within the state to determine whether someone was unduly influenced.
(a) “Undue influence” means excessive persuasion that causes another person to act or refrain from acting by overcoming that person’s free will and results in inequity. In determining whether a result was produced by undue influence, all of the following shall be considered:
(1) The vulnerability of the victim. Evidence of vulnerability may include, but is not limited to, incapacity, illness, disability, injury, age, education, impaired cognitive function, emotional distress, isolation, or dependency, and whether the influencer knew or should have known of the alleged victim’s vulnerability.
(2) The influencer’s apparent authority. Evidence of apparent authority may include, but is not limited to, status as a fiduciary, family member, care provider, health care professional, legal professional, spiritual adviser, expert, or other qualification.
(3) The actions or tactics used by the influencer. Evidence of actions or tactics used may include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(A) Controlling necessaries of life, medication, the victim’s interactions with others, access to information, or sleep.
(B) Use of affection, intimidation, or coercion.
(C) Initiation of changes in personal or property rights, use of haste or secrecy in effecting those changes, effecting changes at inappropriate times and places, and claims of expertise in effecting changes.
(4) The equity of the result. Evidence of the equity of the result may include, but is not limited to, the economic consequences to the victim, any divergence from the victim’s prior intent or course of conduct or dealing, the relationship of the value conveyed to the value of any services or consideration received, or the appropriateness of the change in light of the length and nature of the relationship.
(b) Evidence of an inequitable result, without more, is not sufficient to prove undue influence.
(Added by Stats. 2013, Ch. 668, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2014.)
Contact a reputable neuropsychologist to provide input and advice in a case where you question the vulnerability of the victim and the possibility of undue influence.