Among the factors, the courts consider with respect to undue influence are as follows: the testator's physical as well as mental condition, another one is the opportunity of the beneficiary to mold the mind of the testator to suit his or her purposes, the existence of suspicious circumstances is also taken into consideration, and lastly whether the property disposition is a natural one. In this case, the court ruled that there is undue influence present as the court found out that at the time Ralph signed the will, Ralph was not in pain, that Ralph recognized the witnesses and that he is not appearing to be confused while signing the will. The witnesses further said that Ralph understood what he was doing at that time. Since there was no undue influence, the will signed by Ralph is therefore valid.

The Court should protect the elderly and infirm against the undue influence and fraud in a sense that the will of the testator is the one that will be followed, because after all, in testate succession the "will" of the testator is the primary law. The Courts should consider all the circumstances that were present at the time of the making of the will so that it will be ascertained whether or not the testator is capacitated and all the requisites for making a will are present and whether or not the beneficiaries exercised undue influence or have deceived the testator while making the will.

All wills have that blurb 'being of sound mind' strategically placed at the beginning of them. (Now, you know why that 'disclaimer' is there.) So, if the testator is not lucid when the will is signed, does that phrase have any meaning at all? How much weight would you place in the fact that the testator signed that statement?