
Marc J. Comer
Partner
848-482-8585 mcomer@sh-law.com
Partner
848-482-8585 mcomer@sh-law.com
Will contests in New Jersey are difficult to win, given the strong presumption that a properly executed will reflects the testator’s intent.
However, challenges based on lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence remain common, particularly where there are concerns about mental capacity or the involvement of interested parties.
This article outlines the key legal standards governing New Jersey will contests and how courts evaluate these claims.
New Jersey law establishes a strong presumption that a properly executed will is valid. To qualify as self-proving, a will must be signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses and notarized to attest to the authenticity of the signatures.
Once a will satisfies these formalities, it is presumed to reflect the genuine intent of the testator. This presumption is significant because it places the initial burden of proof on the party contesting the will. A contestant must therefore provide sufficient evidence to overcome the assumption that the will is legally valid and properly executed.
Testamentary capacity refers to the mental ability of the testator to understand and execute a will. New Jersey courts apply a relatively low standard, reflecting the principle that individuals should retain autonomy over their estate plans absent clear evidence to the contrary.
To have testamentary capacity, a testator must understand the general nature of their estate, recognize the natural objects of their bounty, and comprehend the disposition they are making in the will.
Importantly, a testator does not need perfect memory or complete knowledge of every asset or beneficiary. A general understanding is sufficient to satisfy the legal standard.
The party contesting the will must provide evidence, often through medical records or expert testimony, demonstrating that the testator did not meet this standard at the time the will was executed.
Undue influence occurs when improper pressure is exerted on a testator, effectively overriding their independent judgment in disposing of their estate.
In New Jersey, the burden of proof initially rests with the contestant. However, that burden may shift in certain circumstances. As recognized by the New Jersey Supreme Court in , a presumption of undue influence may arise where there are both suspicious circumstances and a confidential relationship between the testator and the alleged influencer.
A confidential relationship exists where one party places trust in another, whether due to dependence, weakness, or a relationship in which reliance is naturally expected. Suspicious circumstances may include mental weakness, significant changes to a testamentary plan, involvement of a beneficiary in drafting or executing the will, or situations where the drafting attorney also represents the beneficiary.
When these elements are present, the burden shifts to the proponent of the will to demonstrate that the will was not the product of undue influence.
Evidence is critical in these disputes. Medical records, expert testimony, and documentation of the testator’s interactions with attorneys and beneficiaries can significantly impact the outcome.
Parties involved in a will contest should be aware that the ability to meet or rebut the applicable burden of proof often depends on the strength and quality of admissable evidence.
Proper documentation, evidence, and legal strategy can significantly impact the outcome of a will contest. Scarinci Hollenbeck’s attorneys are experienced in probate litigation as well as the planning and administration of wills, estates, and trusts.
This experience allows our team to evaluate contested issues effectively and provide guidance tailored to each client’s circumstances. For more information, please contact a member of the firm’s Estate & Trust Litigation practice.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

For battery energy storage system (BESS) developers, securing equipment and site control is only part of the development equation. A project must also connect to the electric grid, and increasingly, BESS interconnection is one of the biggest sources of schedule, cost, and contractual risk. Key Takeaways This article is Part 3 of our Battery Storage […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

Director and officer liability increases sharply when a company is in financial distress. Decisions that would draw little attention in a healthy business can later be challenged by creditors, shareholders, bankruptcy trustees, and regulators as breaches of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfers, or oversight failures. Understanding where that exposure comes from, and how to manage it, […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!