A recent court decision offers insight into two key questions in a New Jersey will contest.
When do suspicious circumstances shift the burden of proving undue influence?
Additionally, can someone who unsuccessfully challenges a will still have attorney’s fees paid from the estate?
Despite finding a confidential relationship and suspicious circumstances surrounding the will’s execution, the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld the will. The Appellate Division also reversed the denial of the contestant’s request for attorney’s fees and sent that issue back.
The August 4, 2026 decision is unpublished. Thus, the case offers a practical example of how New Jersey courts analyze claims of undue influence.
A Family Death Led to a Significant Change in the Will
A family death led to a significant change in the will.
Edmond Dweck and his wife had three children: Frieda, Isaac, and Sam.
Their earlier estate plans divided their property among those children. In 2013, they signed codicils that divided their estate equally among all three. The documents also included per stirpes provisions. As a result, if one of the children died first, that child’s descendants could receive the deceased child’s share.
Sam died from COVID-19 on February 5, 2021.
Only twenty days later, Edmond and his wife signed new mirror wills. The new wills left one-third of the estate to Frieda and two-thirds to Isaac. Sam’s children no longer stood to receive Sam’s former share. The estate’s primary asset later included a Deal, New Jersey residence that generated approximately $6 million when sold.
After Edmond died, his grandson filed a New Jersey Will Contest against the 2021 will. He argued that Isaac had exerted undue influence over his father.
The trial court rejected the claim following a bench trial and admitted the 2021 will to probate.
How Does Undue Influence Present in a New Jersey Will Contest?
A person cannot invalidate a will simply because its terms appear unfair or because a beneficiary helped an elderly parent.
New Jersey law generally requires proof that another person exerted influence strong enough to overcome the testator’s free will. The influence must cause the person making the will to follow someone else’s wishes instead of his or her own.
Ordinarily, the person challenging the will bears the burden of proving undue influence.
That burden can shift, however, when two conditions exist:
- The beneficiary had a confidential relationship with the person making the will.
- Suspicious circumstances surrounded the will or its execution.
The evidence of suspicious circumstances can be slight. Family ties alone, however, do not automatically establish a confidential relationship.
Those distinctions became important in Dweck.
The Appellate Division Found a Confidential Relationship
The trial court initially concluded that Isaac and his father did not have the type of confidential relationship necessary to shift the burden.
The Appellate Division disagreed.
Isaac had handled his parents’ finances for many years. He paid their household expenses, insurance, utility bills, and taxes from their funds. He determined the amount of money they received each month for personal expenses. He also loaned his father money when funds ran low.
That financial dependence mattered.
The Appellate Division specifically rejected the argument that the contestant had to prove Edmond was weak or incapacitated. A confidential relationship can arise from weakness or dependence. The evidence of financial dependence was enough to establish a prima facie confidential relationship.
This point may prove particularly useful in future New Jersey estate litigation. A parent can remain mentally sharp and still depend heavily on one child for financial management.
The Court Also Found Suspicious Circumstances
The Appellate Division also disagreed with the trial court about suspicious circumstances.
Several facts stood out.
Edmond changed his will only twenty days after Sam died. The new will substantially increased Isaac’s inheritance. Isaac made the initial contact with the estate planning attorney about changing the will. Isaac also drove his parents to the attorney’s office when they signed the new documents.
Taken together, the Appellate Division found those facts more than sufficient to establish suspicious circumstances.
The trial court therefore should have shifted the burden to Isaac to establish the absence of undue influence.
That did not change the final result.
Suspicious Circumstances Do Not Automatically Invalidate a Will
This may be the most important lesson from the case.
A confidential relationship plus suspicious circumstances can shift the burden of proof. They do not automatically prove undue influence.
The trial judge had made an alternative finding. Even if the burden shifted to Isaac, the credible evidence established that Isaac did not exert undue influence over his father. The Appellate Division therefore treated the trial court’s failure to shift the burden as harmless error.
The evidence supported Edmond’s independent reasons for changing his estate plan.
His prior wills focused on distributions among his children rather than direct gifts to grandchildren. The testimony also showed that Edmond and his wife historically considered each child’s financial circumstances when deciding how to divide their estate. There was no evidence that either lacked testamentary capacity when they signed the 2021 wills.
The drafting attorney also communicated directly with Edmond. Although Isaac drove his parents to the lawyer’s office, he was not in the room when they signed the wills.
The Appellate Division therefore affirmed the validity of the 2021 will.
Losing a New Jersey Will Contest Can Still Result in Attorney’s Fees
The attorney’s-fee issue makes Dweck particularly noteworthy.
New Jersey Court Rule 4:42-9(a)(3) allows a court to award attorney’s fees from an estate when a contestant had reasonable cause to challenge the validity of a will.
Winning the case is not necessarily the test.
Here, the Appellate Division found that the confidential relationship and suspicious circumstances provided a legitimate basis for bringing the challenge. It reversed the portion of the judgment denying counsel fees and remanded the matter for consideration of the grandson’s application for reasonable attorney’s fees payable by the estate.
That distinction matters. Someone can have reasonable grounds to investigate or challenge a will even if the evidence developed at trial ultimately establishes that the will is valid.
What Estate Planning Families Can Learn from Dweck
The case also offers an estate planning lesson.
Major changes to an estate plan deserve extra care when one beneficiary has significant control over the person’s finances, provides transportation, arranges the attorney meeting, or stands to receive substantially more under the new plan.
Those circumstances do not mean that undue influence occurred. But they can create facts that later support a will contest.
An estate planning attorney can reduce that risk by communicating directly with the client, documenting the reasons for unusual or unequal distributions, confirming that the client understands the effect of the changes, and keeping beneficiaries from participating unnecessarily in the planning process.
The goal is not simply to sign a legally valid will. Good estate planning should also create a clear record showing that the document reflects the client’s independent decisions.
Dweck demonstrates why that record can become critical years later. Contact us to learn more about how to protect yourself in a will challenge.
