Kelley v. Johns

73 Citing cases

  1. In re Estate of Turner

    No. W2004-02123-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2005)   Cited 3 times
    Affirming the trial court's ruling in large part based on credibility findings

    This Court has recognized that "[i]nvalidating a will because of undue influence is generally not a simple undertaking." Kelley v. Johns, 96 S.W.3d 189, 195 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002). Undue influence can be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence.

  2. Foster Business Park v. Winfree

    No. M2006-02340-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2009)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses

    The second category consists of relationships that are not per se fiduciary in nature, but arise in situations where one party exercised "dominion and control over another." Kelley v.Johns, 96 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002); Matlock v. Simpson, 902 S.W.2d 384, 385-86 (Tenn. 1995); Kelly v. Allen, 558 S.W.2d at 848.

  3. In re Estate of Link

    542 S.W.3d 438 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 21 times
    Noting that most of the "missing documents" were irrelevant to the issues in the case and the plaintiff had not shown that the documents were in the defendant's exclusive control during the pendency of the case

    Because direct evidence of undue influence is rare, the contestants in most cases must establish undue influence by proving the existence of suspicious circumstances that support a conclusion that the will's execution was not the product of the testator's free and independent act. Kelley v. Johns , 96 S.W.3d 189, 195 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). The suspicious circumstances most frequently relied on in will contests are (1) a confidential relationship between the testator and the beneficiary, (2) the testator's poor physical or mental health, and (3) the beneficiary's involvement in the procurement of the will.Id. at 196.

  4. Eledge v. Eledge

    No. M2015-01055-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May. 26, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    A confidential relationship "is not merely a relationship of mutual trust and confidence . . . ." Kelley v. Johns, 96 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). Rather, a confidential relationship is "one where confidence is placed by one in the other and the recipient of that confidence is the dominant personality, with ability, because of that confidence, to influence and exercise dominion and control over the weaker or dominated party."

  5. In re Estate of Brevard

    213 S.W.3d 298 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 24 times
    Stating that while proof of a confidential relationship is necessary to the application of undue influence, such a relationship does not make out a prima facie case of undue influence "unless an additional suspicious circumstance exists"

    Halle v. Summerfield, 199 Tenn. 445, 287 S.W.2d 57, 61 (1956). "Thus in most cases, contestants establish undue influence by proving the existence of suspicious circumstances warranting the conclusion that the will was not the testator's free and independent act". Kelley v. Johns, 96 S.W.3d 189, 195 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002). Generally, there is no prescribed type or number of suspicious circumstances necessary to invalidate a will.

  6. Pagliara v. Johnston Barton Proctor & Rose, LLP

    No. 3:10-cv-00679 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 16, 2012)

    A relationship which is not fiduciary per se may become a fiduciary relationship where one party has exercised "'dominion and control over another.'" Id. (quoting Kelley v. Johns, 96 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)). "This relationship, often called a 'confidential relationship,' 'is not merely a relationship of mutual trust and confidence, but rather it is one 'where confidence is placed by one in the other and the recipient of that confidence is the dominant personality, with ability, because of that confidence, to influence and exercise dominion and control over the weaker or dominated party.'"

  7. In re Chaney

    No. E2022-01051-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 28, 2023)

    Relationships not fiduciary in nature, even those that are inherently confidential, such as those between family members, are not confidential per se and require proof of the elements of dominion and control in order to establish the existence of a confidential relationship. Kelley v. Johns, 96 S.W.3d 189, 197-98 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (other internal citations omitted).

  8. In re Will of Erde

    No. W2017-00551-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Finally, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in finding that the will at issue was not the product of undue influence by Beneficiary. It is well-settled that the contestant in a will contest has the burden of proof. Kelley v. Johns, 96 S.W.3d 189, 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (citing In re Elam, 738 S.W.2d at 171; Bills v. Lindsay, 909 S.W.2d 434, 438 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993)). However, "[w]hen two parties enter into either a confidential or fiduciary relationship and the dominant party receives a gift or other benefit from the other party[,] a presumption arises that some improper advantage was taken."

  9. Johnson-Murray v. Burns

    525 S.W.3d 625 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 6 times

    As a general rule, it is presumed that undue influence does not enter into the making of a will and the burden of proving undue influence falls upon the person contesting the will. Kelley v. Johns, 96 S.W.3d 189, 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) ; In re Estate of Maddox, 60 S.W.3d 84, 88–89 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). Undue influence "upon a testator consists of substituting the will of the person exercising it for that of the testator."

  10. In re Norton

    No. E2010-02304-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    In general terms, it is any relationship that gives one person the ability to exercise dominion and control over another. Kelley v. Johns, 96 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). "The burden of proof regarding a confidential relationship rests upon the party claiming the existence of such a relationship."