An intestate heir has standing to challenge the validity of a will that has been admitted to probate if in his petition he alleges a “realistic probability” that a will that was executed one year before and that also disinherits him is also invalid, so that he would receive an intestate share of the estate if both wills were invalid. This is true even though the court has no jurisdiction to determine the validity of the earlier will, and only the validity of the will that was admitted to probate would be adjudicated in the current proceedings. The allegations that the decedent exhibited signs of dementia and was wholly dependent” on the principal beneficiary of the contested will were sufficient allegations of a confidential relationship for purposes of undue influence. Finally, the proponent of the will would receive 60% of the estate, and not an intestate share of one third, so there was a showing of “substantial benefit” for purposes of undue influence even though the proponent would receive a similar share of the estate under the earlier will (for which the contestant alleged a “realistic probability” of invalidity). In re: Estate of Vicent J. Morante, Sr., 2025 PA Super 176, ___ A.4th ___ (8/14/2025).