A directed verdict is not appropriate when there are material disputed facts or when there is disagreement regarding the conclusions that could be drawn from the evidence presented. Mitchell v. Smith, 779 S.W.2d 384, 387 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1989). Viewing the evidence in accordance with those principles:
A confidential relationship is any relationship which gives one person dominion and control over another. See Mitchell v. Smith, 779 S.W.2d 384-389 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). The record in this case shows the plaintiffs have not established that Clyde Green dominated or controlled the decedent or her testamentary decisions in such a way that would amount to moral coercion.
A confidential relationship is any relationship which gives one person dominion and control over another. See Mitchell v. Smith, 779 S.W.2d 384, 389 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1989). The burden of proof regarding a confidential relationship rests upon the party claiming the existence of such a relationship.
Undue influence can occur when a confidential relationship places one party in the capacity to exert control over the mind and will of another person. Fritts v. Abbott, 938 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (citing Bright v. Bright, 729 S.W.2d 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986)). Undue influence can be established through two avenues: direct evidence of undue influence, or the existence of suspicious circumstances that leads to a conclusion that the allegedly influenced person did not act freely and independently. Mitchell v. Smith, 779 S.W.2d 384, 388 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (citations omitted). "While undue influence may be proved either by direct or circumstantial evidence, direct evidence of undue influence is rarely available."
"The most common way of establishing the existence of undue influence is `by proving the existence of suspicious circumstances warranting the conclusion that the [action] was not the [grantor's] free and independent act.'" Estate of Hamilton v. Morris, 67 S.W.3d 786, 792 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2001) (quoting Mitchell v. Smith, 779 S.W.2d 384, 388 (Ten. Ct. App. 1989)). Some of the most frequently used suspicious circumstances include (1) the existence of a confidential relationship, (2) poor physical and mental condition of the grantor, or (3) the beneficiary's involvement in the procurement of the transaction.
Thus, in most cases, the 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. Mitchell v. Smith, 779 S.W.2d 384, 388 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1989). The courts have refrained from prescribing the type or number of suspicious circumstances necessary to invalidate a will because of undue influence.
A confidential relationship is not merely one of mutual trust and confidence, but 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. Mitchell v. Smith, 779 S.W.2d 384, 389 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1989). If a confidential relationship is proved, in some circumstances a presumption of undue influence arises. The dominant rule in Tennessee and elsewhere is that the existence of a confidential relationship, followed by a transaction where the dominant party receives a benefit from the other party, a presumption of undue influence arises, that may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence of the fairness of the transaction.
One oftenmentioned factor is the active participation of the beneficiary in securing the preparation of, or a change in, a will. See, e.g. , Bye v.Mattingly , 975 S.W.2d 451, 457 (Ky. 1998); Vancil v. Carpenter , 935 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Mo.Ct.App. 1996); Estate of Gerard v. Gerard , 911 P.2d 266, 270 (Okla. 1995); Van Marter v. Van Marter , 882 P.2d 134, 137 (Or.Ct.App. 1994); In re Estate of Julian , 592 N.E.2d 39, 44 (Ill.App.Ct. 1991); In re Estate of Schroeder , 441 N.W.2d 527, 532 (Minn.Ct.App. 1989); Mitchell v. Smith , 779 S.W.2d 384, 388 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1989); In re Estate of McCauley , 415 P.2d 431, 433-34 (Ariz. 1966); In re Lingenfelter's Estate , 241 P.2d 990, 999 (Cal. 1952).
A confidential relationship is any relationship which gives one person dominion and control over another. See Mitchell v. Smith, 779 S.W.2d 384, 389 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).The burden of proof regarding a confidential relationship rests upon the party claiming the existence of such a relationship.
A confidential relationship is any relationship which gives one person dominion and control over another. See Mitchell v. Smith, 779 S.W.2d 384, 389 (Tenn. Ct. App.1989).The burden of proof regarding a confidential relationship rests upon the party claiming the existence of such a relationship.