Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
1
in evidence law
A recent improper influence or motive affecting a witness that a prior consistent statement may rebut. The statement must predate the alleged influence and be offered after an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper motive.
2
Sense 1
1
in evidence law
A recent improper influence or motive affecting a witness that a prior consistent statement may rebut. The statement must predate the alleged influence and be offered after an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper motive.
Sources & Authorities· 1 primary source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Federal Rules
Sense 2
2
in fiduciary law
Misleading statements or other improper conduct by a trustee or fiduciary that taints a beneficiary's consent, release, or ratification. Such conduct prevents the beneficiary's agreement from shielding the fiduciary from liability for breach of trust.
Sources & Authorities· 2 sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Practice Questions
Put it into practice
Test Yourself
10
Practice Questions5
in fiduciary law
Misleading statements or other improper conduct by a trustee or fiduciary that taints a beneficiary's consent, release, or ratification. Such conduct prevents the beneficiary's agreement from shielding the fiduciary from liability for breach of trust.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Examples1
Prior Statement Rebuts Motive Charge
Ibrahim testified at trial that Infinity Bank had altered loan documents after he signed them. On cross-examination, defense counsel suggested Ibrahim changed his account only after consulting with new counsel who stood to gain from the suit. Infinity Bank offered emails Ibrahim sent to a colleague six months earlier describing the same alterations. The emails predated any contact with new counsel and were admitted to show Ibrahim's account had not arisen from recent improper influence.
Frequently Asked2
What must a prior consistent statement predate to rebut a charge of recent improper influence?+
The statement must predate the alleged motive or influence. If the motive arose before the statement, the statement cannot rebut the charge of recent fabrication or improper influence.
Supporting sources
Can a prior consistent statement offered to rebut improper influence be admitted even if the exact onset of motive is unclear?+
The statement is admissible only if the record shows it predates the motive. When facts leave the timing genuinely uncertain, courts may exclude the statement because it fails to rebut the charge that the motive already existed.
Supporting sources
Examples1
Misleading Releases Fail as Defense
Isabella served as trustee of a family trust and sold trust property to a company in which she held an undisclosed interest. After the sale she sent beneficiaries a one-page summary that omitted a higher internal appraisal and her conflict. The beneficiaries signed ratification forms. When they later sued for breach, the court refused to treat the ratifications as a defense because Isabella's omissions constituted improper influence that rendered the consents uninformed.
Frequently Asked2
Does a beneficiary's release protect a trustee when obtained through misleading statements?+
No. A release or ratification induced by the trustee's improper conduct, such as misleading assurances or material omissions, does not bar later breach claims. The consent must be informed and free from improper influence.
Supporting sources
Is a trustee shielded from liability merely because beneficiaries signed a release form?+
No. The release is ineffective if the trustee failed to disclose material facts or used misleading descriptions that prevented informed consent. Voluntariness alone does not suffice when the fiduciary's improper conduct tainted the process.
Supporting sources
Trusts and Estates Decedents EstatesWills · Will contestsUBEFoundational