invalidated by undue influence may have only the particular clauses at
issue declared void if this is possible.


                             CLINICAL VIGNETTES

    As might be expected, cases involving a claim of undue influence will
most often involve the relevance of organic brain syndromes rather than
psychoses such as schizphrenia or manic-depressive illness (major affect-
ive disorder).

    Case 1.  An 88-year-old widow had been hospitalized at a private
psychiatric institution at age 82 because of a paranoid psychotic state and
cerebrovascular disease - arteriosclerosis.  She was hospitalized for six
months and placed under guardianship;  she was transferred to a nursing
home run by a religious order, where she remained until her death.  Two
years after admission to the nursing home, she was described by psychia-
trist X as most cooperative, bright, alert, having no memory deficit and
being quite familiar with her assets of about $260,000.  At a later point,
she had her guardianship terminated and sued her daughter for abuse of her
position as guardian.  At a hearing on this issue, she was noted to be
talkative, verbose, flamboyant, extremely hostile, often inappropriate and
confused, irritable and petulant.  The psychiatrist Y, who had not examined
the patient, but observed her during the hearing, emphasized the fact that
he had not evaluated her adequately in conformance with professional stand-
ards, but felt that the observations and verbatim transcript on its face
demonstrated a clear example of severe chronic brain syndrome, probably
due to arteriosclerosis.  The diagnosis by a nursing home physician was
cerebral arteriosclerosis, a diagnosis that psychiatrist X felt was not
manifest to any significant degree.

    The widow prepared a will leaving her estate to the nursing home.  When
it was known that a will was being prepared, the daughter hired psychiatrist
Z who had managed the patient during her six month psychiatric hospitali-
zation five or six years earlier to reexamine her mother.  The Mother
Superior held the patient incommunicado and would not let the psychiatrist
who had gone to the nursing home examine the patient.

    There was marked conflict in psychiatric testimony by the psychiatrists
who had in fact limited opportunity to examine the patient.  The court
decided that the patient was not shown to be mentally incompetent (that is,
lacking testamentary capacity).  The court did rule that the will was the
result of undue influence, resulting in the voiding of the will and the disposi-
tion of the estate to the daughter by an earlier will.

    The determining factors were (1) the dependent and impaired condition
of the testator, (2) significant evidence of impaired mental functioning even
though not of a degree to justify a finding of testamentary incapacity, (3)
control of the environment by the beneficiary to the point where the testator
was excluded from the outside world.  This abuse of a trust situation and the
suspicious circumstances resulted in a finding of undue influence.  The