Whereas before 2014 undue influence was defined as "a confidential relationship for the purpose of obtaining an unfair advantage," now the state is taking into account the actions of abusers that occur after a victim's death. Under the amended statute, undue influence has been extended to acts committed by a perpetrator after an elder has already passed away.
Now that the definition of undue influence has undergone an upgrade, it is specified as "excessive persuasion that causes another person to act or refrain from acting by overcoming that person's free will and results in inequity." There's no longer a requirement for a relationship between the abuser and the abused, meaning that it should be simpler to prosecute scammers and identity thieves for elder abuse, even though they never had a personal acquaintance with the victim.
The main emphasis now is on the inequitable result brought about through excessive persuasion - which could mean anything from psychological pressure or physical coercion to outright fraud. Standing alone, an unfair outcome in an estate case is not enough to prove sufficient grounds for undue influence - there must be other elements in play.
The new California statute encompasses unlawful acts undertaken both before and after the death of an elder - so that any wrongdoing that occurred during the life of the victim and the estate arrangements enacted upon their passing can be prosecuted more effectively.
With a more comprehensive definition of undue influence in place, there's a better chance to pursue justice for the victims of elder abuse and their families.