So, you are claiming that the trust instrument was procured by undue influence, and therefore it should be declared void. See Rice v. Clark
, (2002) 28 Cal.4th 89 ("Although a person challenging the testamentary instrument ordinarily bears the burden of proving undue influence (§ 8252), this court and the Courts of Appeal have held that a presumption of undue influence, shifting the burden of proof
, arises upon the challenger's showing that (1) the person alleged to have exerted undue influence had a confidential relationship with the testator; (2) the person actively participated in procuring the instrument's preparation or execution; and (3) the person would benefit unduly by the testamentary instrument. (Estate of Fritschi supra,
60 Cal.2d at p. 376, 33 Cal.Rptr. 264
, 384 P.2d 656
; Estate of Sarabia, supra,
221 Cal.App.3d at p. 605, 270 Cal.Rptr. 560
; Estate of Auen
(1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 300
, 309, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 557
; see also id.
at p. 310, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 557
[where person alleged to have exerted influence was testator's attorney, any benefit other than compensation for legal services may be considered 'undue'].)")
You appear to have some evidence of the defendant's custom of exerting undue influence over others. That could show the intent to do so in the particular instance of the trust. However, the question is whether or not there is any direct evidence that undue influence was actually exerted when the trust was made. For that, I do not see any evidence. Therefore, my answer, at this point, is that the case is not strong enough to prevail.
Please don't take my comments as dispositive. I don't have all of the facts. My opinion is based solely on the limited information provided.
Hope this helps.