OPINION
{1} Whеn Gregoria C de Baca died on May 11, 2004, she was survived by nine children: Rosina Villa, Rudy C de Baca, Viola Varela, Simon C de Baca, Tom C de Baca, Daniel C de Baca, Gilbert C de Baca, Edwina Chapman, and Donna C de Baca. Gregoria’s will, dated August 28, 2002, left one dollar to each of her children except Viola, who the will appointed as personal representative and to whom the will conveyed the remainder of Gregoria’s estate via its residuary clause. Viola already had received much of Gregoria’s real property via five inter vivos warranty deeds that had been signed and recorded about three years before Gregoria’s death and about one year before the will was executed. Edwina and Gilbert, subsequently joined by Rudy, Daniel, Rosina, and Donna, brought actions in district court to set aside the will and deeds as the products of Viola’s undue influence. After a trial, the district court voided the will and the deeds. The Court of Appeals concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the district court’s finding of undue influence regarding the will, but did not reach the issue of the deeds. Chapman v. Varela (In re Estate of C de Baca),
{2} We reverse the Court of Appeаls and hold that there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s findings of a confidential relationship between Gregoria and Viola and suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of her will. Accordingly, under our rules governing civil presumptions, we hold that sufficient evidence existed for the district court’s ultimate conclusion that the will was void as the product of Viola’s undue influence. Finally, because the Court of Appeals did not decide the validity of the deeds, and because this issue was not specifically briefed to the Supreme Court, we remand to the Court of Appeals for its determination of this issue.
I. BACKGROUND
{3} Gregoria C de Baca died on May 11, 2004, at the age of 84. Edwina and Gilbert, claiming that Gregoria died intestate, submitted an application in district court for informal appointment as personal representatives. They were subsequently named personal representatives of Gregoria’s estate. In a separate action that was later consolidated with the probate proceedings in district court, Edwina and Gilbert claimed that five inter vivos warranty deeds of Gregoria’s real property to Viola were procured by forgery, misrepresentation, оr undue influence. 1 Viola subsequently petitioned the district court to admit Gregoria’s will into probate, and in accordance with the will, to remove Edwina and Gilbert as personal representatives and appoint her in their place. The will provided one dollar to each of Gregoria’s children except for Viola and purported to detail Gregoria’s grievances with several of them. In contrast, the will praised Viola, noted that Gregoria’s bank accounts and real property had already been conveyed to her, and devised the residue of Gregoria’s estate to her. Viola was appointed personal representative and made various counterclaims that are not relevant to this appeal. Edwina and Gilbert, joined by Rudy, Daniel, Rosina, and Donna (collectively “Siblings”), petitioned the district court to set aside the will as a product of Viola’s undue influence. After a bench trial, the district court removed Viola as personal representative and set aside the deeds and the will, concluding that “[b]y clear and convincing evidence, [the deeds] and [the will] are the result of undue influence by Viola Varela.”
{4} Viola sought review in the Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court, holding that there was insufficient evidence that the "will was the product of undue influence. Chapman,
II. DISCUSSION
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
{5} Tо find sufficient evidence to support the district court’s invalidation of Gregoria’s will because of undue influence, we must be able to conclude that a reasonable fact finder could have found clear and convincing evidence of undue influence. Gersbach v. Warren (In re Estate of Gersbach),
B. DEFINING UNDUE INFLUENCE
{6} The first dispute between the parties concerns exactly what it is that the district court must have been able to find by clear and convincing evidence to set aside Gregoria’s will because of undue influence. However, as a preliminary matter, the parties do not disagree over the most general outlines of this doctrine. Undue influence “means influence, improperly exerted, which acts to the injury of the person swayed by it or to the injury of those persons whom [he or] she would have benefited.” Brown v. Cobb,
{7} Many years ago, we observed that the fundamental problem of proving undue influence was that:
In the nature of things it would bе a rare case where the details of conversation or conduct could be shown indicating undue persuasion and influence. Such arts would be exercised only in the absence of witnesses, or, at most, in the presence of those whose interest and inclination would impel to their denial.
Cardenas v. Ortiz,
(1) old age and weakened physical or mental condition of testator; (2) lack of consideration for the bequest; (3) unnatural or unjust disposition of the property; (4) participation of beneficiary in procuring the gift; (5) domination or control over the donor by a beneficiary; and (6) secrecy, concealment, or failure to disclose the gift by a beneficiary. 2
Id. “This is not an exhaustive list, nor is it a list of circumstances that are always suspicious. Furthermore, the presence of any of these circumstances is not in itself dispositive.” Gersbach,
{8} The parties disagree over the effect the presumption should have on our review for substantial evidence. Viola urges us to accept the reasoning of the Court of Appeals. That Court noted that “[i]n order to uphold the ... judgment [of undue influence], we would need to conclude that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [the contestant], a reasonable fact finder could find clear and convincing evidence that the testator made a gift he would not have made absent improper influence.” Chapman,
{9} Siblings and Amicus, on the other hand, argue that by requiring proof going to the ultimate issue of whether Gregoria’s intent was subverted through undue influence, the Court of Appeals “would require contestants to prove facts that are often unknowable” and thereby “denie[d] the contestants them well-established right to a presumption .... ” Siblings and Amicus claim that “New Mexico undue influence law puts upon the contestant only the burden of showing a confidential relationship and circumstances which over the decades have proven to be reliable indicia of an abuse of a confidential relationship.” We believe that this position is essentially correct.
{10} To explain our conclusion, we must briefly expound on the effect of presumptions in civil cases in New Mexico. Rule 11-301 NMRA provides that:
In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by statute or by these rules, a рresumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast.
{11} Rule 11-301 operates in undue influence eases as follows. In a jury trial, once a presumption of undue influence is raised, the contestant’s burden of going forward with the evidence is satisfied and he or she is not susceptible to a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Mortgage Inv. Co. v. Griego,
{12} More importantly for the purposes of our sufficiency of the evidence review on appeal, under Rule 11-301 a presumption once raised in both jury and non-jury trials continues to have evidentiary force, regardless of the contradictory evidence presented by the party against whom it is employed. Thus, although the raising of the presumption does not mandate any final result at trial, if the fact finder concludes that the party raising the presumption has prevailed аnd we find sufficient evidence to support the raising of the presumption, we will not set aside the fact finder’s conclusion on appeal. This is because Rule 11-301 “eliminated the ‘bursting bubble’ theory of presumptions, and a presumption now retains evidentiary effect throughout the trial, so as to permit the fact finder to draw an inference of the presumed fact from proof of the basic or predicate fact.” Roberts Oil Co. v. Transamerica Ins. Co.,
{13} It is precisely because of the evidentiary effects of presumptions that our law employs them in undue influence cases, where, as we noted above, direct proof is notoriously elusive. The mechanism of a presumption allows the will contestant to get the issue of undue influence before the fact finder by offering only proof of a confidential relationship and suspicious circumstances.
{14} Of course, even if a party successfully raises a presumption that could be used by the fact finder to justify a finding of the ultimate fact of undue influence, the risk of nonpersuasion never shifts from the party on whom it was originally placed: the will contestant. Rule 11-301; § 45-3-407. The ultimate question before the trier of fact is whether the will contestant has proven that “the testator made a gift he would not have made absent improper influence.” Gersbach,
{15} For this reason, we disagree with the Court of Appeals that its role was to “consider the existence of suspicious circumstances not as ends in themselves but as clues in discovering the testator’s intent[,]” Chapman,
{16} We must also emphasize that we do not believe that these standards pose a risk to testamentary freedom. While a presumption will take the contestant to the fact finder, the fact finder must still determine whether the contestant has made his or her ultimate ease for undue influence by clear and convincing evidence. In so deciding, the fact finder may credit or ignore the presumption. As a result, a canny contestant may not feel comfortable resting on the bare quantum of evidence sufficient to raise the presumption of undue influence. We trust that juries and judges acting as finders of fact will make the reasonable choice if asked to weigh a contestant’s naked presumption against the well-supported explanations of a will proponent. Our system of presumptions simply assures that it is the finder of fact, not the judge as arbiter of law, that makes this determination.
{17} In sum, our review for sufficiency of the evidence will be satisfied if there was enough evidence to allow the finder of fact to find clearly and convincingly that Viola and Gregoria had a confidential relationship and that suspicious circumstances existed. We disagree with the Court of Appeals’ statements that the factors giving rise to the presumption are for the appellate court merely “clues in discovering the testator’s intent[,]” Chapman,
C. THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE DISTRICT COURT’S FINDING OF UNDUE INFLUENCE
{18} Our review for substantial evidence requires us to consider whether the evidence as a whole was sufficient to prove the existence of a confidential relationship and suspicious circumstances. See Strozzi,
1. CONFIDENTIAL OR FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP
{19} Citing the evidence that Gregoria had depended on Viola for transportation, meals, and housekeeping, had given Viola a power of attorney and placed Viola’s name on her bank accounts, the district court concluded that a confidential or fiduciary relationship existed between the two. We agree with the Court of Appeals that this was supported by sufficient evidence. Chapman,
The record indicates [decedent] and [proponent] were close friends. The two often spent time together alone and talked on the phone frequently, conversations to which [contestant] was not a party. The record also indicates that [decedent] trusted [proponent]. [Proponent] was permitted to pay a minimal rent on the farm.... The trial court found that [decedent] “had disclosed to [proponent] the location of substantial amounts of cash” ... and that [decedent] “loaned money to [proponent] without setting any particular terms for the repayment of those debts.” These facts support the district court’s finding that a confidential relationship existed.
Id. ¶ 12 (citation omitted). The relationship between Viola and Gregoria certainly rose to this level. Viola admitted that she had a close relationship with Gregoria, seeing her daily, bathing h'er, buying her groceries, cleaning her house, accompanying her to doctor’s appointments, and paying her bills. Viola also admitted that she had a joint checking account with Gregoria and had received a durable power of attorney from her. Particularly after Gregoria’s hearing declined following a stroke, testimony indicated that Gregoria used Viola as an intermediary to communicate with others and may simply have allowed Viola to speak for her. Finally, Gregoria allowed Viola to participate in the drafting and execution of her will and the deeds. This level of trust and dependence satisfies even the most stringent definitions of a confidential or fiduciary relationship.
2. SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
a. Old Age and Weakened Physical or Mental Condition
{20} The district court considered Gregoria’s ill health and resultant dependence on her family as evidence contributing to its finding of suspicious circumstances. For instance, it found that “[i]n [her] last few years Gregoria C de [B]aca also suffered from age related and stroke related loss of cognitive functioning and memory loss.” The Court of Appeals held that this evidence should not have contributed to a finding of undue influence, explaining that evidence of Gregoria’s declining physical and mental condition did not demonstratе the susceptibility to influence required under our case law. See Chapman,
{21} We disagree. It is true that “[n]o New Mexico case has based a presumption of undue influence on the fact that the testator was elderly without evidence that the testator’s age had affected his or her mental ability.” Gonzales,
{22} Although Siblings did not present the sort of overwhelming evidence of susceptibility that might justify raising the presumption in and of itself, the evidence they did produce of Gregoria’s susceptibility was still relevant. See Chapman,
b. Unnatural or Unjust Disposition
{23} The district court found that Gregoria’s will was an “[unjust] and unnatural disposition” because “[t]he conveyances and the Will were at variance with the previous declarations and known affections of Gregoria C de Baca.” The Court of Appeals disagreed. It noted first that because Viola is Gregoria’s daughter, “[t]he devise in the present case does not fit easily into the traditional definition of an unnatural gift because although Viola is a natural object of Gregoria’s bounty, so were the other eight children____” Chapman,
{24} Although we agree with the Court of Appeals that some of the evidence ostensibly contributing to the district court’s ruling that the will was an unnatural or unjust disposition was not relevant, we reach this conclusion partly in a different manner. To begin, however, we concur with the Court of Appeals that Gregoria’s will does not fit the traditional definition of an unnatural disposition. In Gersbach, we explained that “[a] ‘natural disposition’ has been defined as one ‘which provides for a testator’s heirs at law. As one court succinctly put it: ‘[T]he natural object of a will maker’s bounty is one related to him/her by consanguinity.’ ”
{25} However, our cases have also defined unnatural or unjust dispositions to include transfers of property at оdds with a testator’s previously expressed intentions and affections. For instance, in Doughty,
{26} In this case, the bulk of Siblings’ testimony relating to this factor concerned Gregoria’s real property. Five witnesses testified that Gregoria had planned to give her house to Gilbert, who received just one dollar in the will. The only other evidence potentially going to the issue of unjust disposition concerned the falsehood of some of the assertions in the will. For instance, the will stated that Rosina had not seen Gregoria for twenty years, had stolen and never paid baсk $18,000, and had been unappreciative and rude. Rosina testified that she had seen Gregoria over the last twenty years, had never taken $18,000, and had not behaved as the will claimed she did. The will stated that Gilbert had refused to pay the bills while living in Gregoria’s house, had made unpleasant remarks or been moody, and had never repaid loans. Gilbert testified that he had attempted to pay the bills, had a close relationship with his mother and had not made such remarks, and had provided some money to Gregoria, but had been assured by her that he did not need to repay the full amount of the loans.
{27} We disagree with the Court of Appeals’ reasons for rejecting this evidence. First, the Court stated that because Gregoria gave gifts when she was so inclined, the testimony about the real property was not relevant to undue influence. Our standard of review precludes us from re-weighing the evidence on appeal. See Doughty,
{28} Nevertheless, we still hold that the evidence concerning the real property was not relevant to whether the will was an unjust disposition. We reach this conclusion because there is no evidence that the will was intended to dispose of any of the real property that was the focus of Siblings’ evidence. On the contrary, the warranty deeds to Viola were the instruments that were intended to dispose of Gregoria’s real property, including the house that Siblings claimed was to be given to Gilbert. Although Siblings’ actions to void the deeds have raised the potential that the real property could in fact pass via the residuary clause of the will, no evidence suggests that this was part of Viola’s design. To the contrary, the residuary clause was added to the will at the suggestion of an attorney more than a year after the execution of the deeds. Although, as we discuss below, Viola participated heavily in drafting earlier versions of the will around the time of the execution of the deeds, these earlier versions included no residuary clause аnd specifically stated that the real property had already been conveyed to Viola. Because no evidence suggests that the will was intended by either Viola or Gregoria to convey Gregoria’s real property, evidence about Gregoria’s intentions regarding the real property are irrelevant to our determination of whether the will was an unjust disposition.
{29} Without this evidence, precious little remains to show that Gregoria’s will was an unjust disposition; Siblings’ other testimony stated that the sentiments in the will were false, but did not suggest that Gregoria had any intention to leave other parts of her estate to them. Such evidence alone is certainly not sufficient to support a finding of suspicious circumstances. However, it would be arbitrary to refuse to consider evidence that a will is full of false or unrepresentative assertions about the people it disinherits. See 3 William J. Bowe & Douglas H. Parker, Page on the Law of Wills § 29.126, at 812 (2004) (explaining that “evidence is admissible to explain the actual relations which existed between testator and the beneficiaries under the will, on the one hand, and the relations between the testator and the natural objects of his bounty, on the other, inсluding the conduct of the beneficiaries and heirs respectively toward testator, and his actual feelings for them, as far as such conduct, feelings, and the like, furnish motives and reasons for or against the will” (footnotes omitted)). Since evidence of Gregoria’s relations with her children appears somewhat relevant to the question of undue influence, we see no reason to hold that the district court should not have considered it along with the other evidence.
c. Participation in the Procurement
{30} The district court found that “Viola Varela was directly involved in the procurement of the Will and the deeds to herself.” The Court of Appeals held that there was insufficient evidence to support this finding. Chapman,
{31} First, the Court’s definition of participation in the procurement was incorrect. In Gonzales, the case relied upon by the Court of Appeals, we simply observed that because the will proponent’s signature on the will was not legally required for its execution, “[i]t cannot be said that [the proponent] participated in procuring the will by securing its execution when his signature was unnecessary.”
{32} Other New Mexico ease law supports this interpretation. In Doughty,
{33} With these cases in mind, we conclude that the evidence considered by the district court was relevant to the question of undue influence. Evidence was presented that about a year and a half before the will was executed, a separate and nearly identical document had been signed by Gregoria and notarized. Victoria Varela, Viola’s daughter, testified that she had typed this earlier will based on Gregoria’s dictation, without reference to any notes or drafts. Viola, in her testimony, adopted her daughter’s version of events. However, Viola also admitted that before Victoria had typed the earlier will, Viola had purchased a will template at a stationery store and typed it up herself, creating a document nearly identical to the earlier will that Victoria claimed to have written from Gregoria’s statements without reference to any notes or drafts. Despite this revelation, Viola persisted in claiming that the template was not used to create the earlier will. Moreover, Viola’s and Victoria’s testimony contradicted statements made by Viola elsewhere in her testimony and in her deposition that her mother had written out a rough draft which was used to type the earlier will.
{34} After the earlier will was drafted, Viola took her mother to have it notarized, but failed to follow the formalities required under the Probate Code. Attorney Ruben Rodriguez testified that a year and a half later, Viola contacted him to have the earlier will “checkfed] and redo[ne,]” apparently specifying that the language in the earlier will should be copied exactly. Viola and Gregoria then came to Rodriguez’s office on two different occasions. The first time, both Viola and Gregoria were present, and they explained again that they wanted a more professional will, but that it should contain the same language as the earlier will. Accordingly, the will as it was finally executed is largely identical to the earlier will, with the exception of the addition of a residuary clause to Viola’s benefit. The second time they visited Rodriguez, Viola was asked to leave while Rodriguez confirmed that the will reflected Gregoria’s intent and then properly executed it.
{35} From this evidence, the finder of fact reasonably could have inferred that Viola both wrote the language that ended up in the will and also shepherded it through multiple drafts and meetings with a notary and an attorney until the will had been properly legally executed in nearly the exact form in which Viola had first drafted it. Common sense dictates that this sort of conduct could be considered a more suspicious form of participation in the procurement of a will than merely affixing a legally required signature. The district court properly considered this evidence in making its ultimate determination of whether the presumption was raised.
d. Domination or Control
{36} The district court made the following findings relating to domination or control:
11. Viola Varela used her position of confidence and power to her advantage to influence and control the actions and decisions of Gregoria C de Baca.
12. Viola Varela used her position of influence and control to manipulate the bank accounts of Gregoria C de Baca.
17. Viola Varela had an assertive and domineering personality. Gregoria C de Baca was submissive when around Viola.
18. Viоla Varela attempted to poison the relationship between Gregoria C de Baca and her other children by making disparaging and derogatory remarks about them and attempting to restrict their access to Ms. C de Baca.
19. Viola Varela interfered with the efforts of Gregoria C de Baca to obtain independent legal counsel.
{37} Using Hummer as its touchstone, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court, holding that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate control and dominance, since “[t]here is no indication that Gregoria was afraid of Viola or that Viola induced Gregoria to believe things that she otherwise would not have believed.” Chapman,
{38} We see no reason to categorically exclude the evidence considered by the district court, even though, under our precedents, it might not be sufficient by itself to decide the issue of undue influence. The Court of Appeals was correct that the decedent in Hummer was more dominated by the proponents of her will than is true in this ease.
{39} Moreover, this section of the Court of Appeals’ opinion appears to draw some inferences against the party that prevailed at trial. See Chapman,
{40} We find support in the record for all of the findings of fact made by the district court on this point: that Viola may have taken part in firing an attorney retained by Gregoria to investigate the deeds; that Viola spoke for Gregoria; that Viola disparaged the other siblings, although not to the point of estranging them; that Gregoria was submissive around Viola; and that Viola manipulated Gregoria’s bank accounts.
{41} We see no reason to categorically exclude this evidence from consideration, even if it might not be sufficient in and of itself to raise the presumption of undue influence. We find curious, for example, the Court of Appeals’ statement that “[e]ven if Viola influenced Gregoria’s decision to fire [her attorney], we do not believe that evidence supports a further inference that Viola manipulated Gregoria into making a will that did not reflect her intentions.” Chapman,
e. Secrecy
{42} The district court found that “Viola Varela was secretive. She did not keep Gregoria C de Baca or her brothers and sisters informed of some actions taken concerning the properties and assets of Gregoria C de Baca.” The Court of Appeals again disagreed, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support this finding because other family members had already discovered the deeds after Viola’s son angrily boasted of owning all of Gregoria’s property. Chapman,
{43} It is undisputed that despite ample opportunities, Viola did not tell her siblings or Gregoria’s other potential heirs, other than her own children, about the will. This seems to be sufficient evidence of secrecy to us, but because the Court of Appeals addressed the deeds, so will we. Siblings discovered the deeds through Viola’s son’s inadvertence and did not discover the will until after Gregoria’s death. It is true that because of the nature of many undue influence cases, secrecy often prevents the contestant of the will or other conveyance from determining whether the testator or grantor had been unduly influenced by directly asking him or her. See, e.g., Doughty,
f. Lack of Consideration
{44} It does not appear that the district court made any finding relevant to the issue of lack of consideration. However, citing Gersbach, the Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence of Viola’s service to Gregoria and the opinions of various witnesses that Gregoria wanted Viola to inherit her estate either helped to rebut the presumption of undue influence or prevented it from arising in the first place. Chapman,
{45} Gersbach was correct to the extent that it suggested that lack of consideration is not a suspicious circumstance in many cases involving wills. Montoya,
g. Viewed as a Whole, There Was Sufficient Evidence of Suspicious Circumstances
{46} We have found support for the district court’s findings of old age or weakened physical or mental condition; participation in the procurement, domination, or control; and secrecy. Although these factors in combination will not necessarily raise a suspicion of undue influence in all cаses, and the specific pieces of evidence in this case might not be enough individually to justify a finding of suspicious circumstances, we hold that under the facts of this case, the district court was justified in concluding that suspicious circumstances existed. The finder of fact could reasonably have found that Viola, who had a relationship with Gregoria suggesting some measure of dominance, drafted and secured the execution of a will for Gregoria benefitting herself and disparaging her siblings at a time when Gregoria was suffering from various ailments that could have affected her cognition, and then kept the will secret from Gregoria’s other children until after Gregoria’s death. Together, this evidence was sufficient to allow the trier of fact to conclude the existence of suspicious circumstances by clear and convincing evidence.
D. THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO RAISE THE PRESUMPTION AND SUPPORT THE DISTRICT COURT’S FINDING OF UNDUE INFLUENCE
{47} Because there was sufficient evidence for the finder of fact to conclude that Viola and Gregoria shared a confidential or fiduciary relationship and additionally that suspicious circumstances existed, there was by definition sufficient evidence to raise the presumption of undue influence. Once raised, this presumption “permitted] the fact finder to draw an inference of the presumed fact from proof of the basic or predicate fact.” Roberts Oil Co.,
III. CONCLUSION
{48} Because there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the district court’s finding that Gregoria’s will was the product of undue influence, we reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the district court. We remand the case to the Court of Appeals to determine the question of undue influence regarding Gregoria’s deeds to Viola.
{49} IT IS SO ORDERED.
Notes
. Siblings also sought to set aside a deed of real property from Gregoria to Viola’s son, Vincent, but neither this claim nor Vincent's various counterclaims are relevant to this appeal.
. In our analysis of these factors later in the opinion, we re-order the factors slightly by placing lack of consideration last. We take this action because this factor is irrelevant to the case at bar and because the Court of Appeals reordered the factors in the same way.
. We note that the effect of presumptions in civil cases is thus markedly diffеrent than in criminal cases, where a presumption can have no inherent evidentiary effect. See State v. Trossman,
. We note that Gersbach may have suggested that the bar for proving unnatural or unjust dispositions in New Mexico is higher than this. 1998— NMSC-013, ¶ 28,