 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Estate of Bean12/1/2005
dence demonstrated that Mr. Bean was limited by his age and health in July 1998, but they failed to establish that he neither knew nor understood what he was doing when he executed his July 1998 will.
C. Robert Bean's Undue Influence
Robert Bean also insists that the record does not contain sufficient material evidence to permit the jury to determine that he exerted undue influence to procure his father's July 1998 will. He argues that the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Bean changed his will at his own volition. We have determined that the record contains material evidence supporting a conclusion that Robert Bean procured his father's will using undue influence.
While undue influence may be proved either by direct or circumstantial evidence, direct evidence of undue influence is rarely available. Accordingly, in most cases, parties contesting a will on the ground that it was procured by undue influence must prove the existence of suspicious circumstances warranting the conclusion that the person allegedly influenced did not act freely and independently. Kelley v. Johns, 96 S.W.3d 189, 195 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002); Fell v. Rambo, 36 S.W.3d 837, 847 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); Mitchell v. Smith, 779 S.W.2d 384, 388 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). Whether the suspicious circumstances relied upon by the contestants are sufficient to invalidate a will should be "decided by the application of sound principles and good sense." Halle v. Summerfield, 199 Tenn. 445, 454, 287 S.W.2d 57, 61 (1956); In re Estate of Maddox, 60 S.W.3d at 89.
The courts have not attempted to catalogue the types or number of suspicious circumstances needed to invalidate a will, but, as we have already discussed, the scope of relevant evidence is quite broad. The suspicious circumstances most frequently relied upon to establish undue influence are: (1) the existence of a confidential relationship between the testator and the beneficiary, (2) the testator's physical or mental deterioration, and (3) the beneficiary's active involvement in procuring the will. In re Estate of Elam, 738 S.W.2d at 173; Kelly v. Allen, 558 S.W.2d 845, 848 (Tenn. 1977); Estate of Hamilton v. Morris, 67 S.W.3d 786, 792 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). Other circumstances include: (1) secrecy concerning the will's existence, (2) the unjust or unnatural nature of the will's terms, (3) discrepancies between the will and the testator's expressed intentions, and (4) fraud or duress directed toward the testator. Kelley v. Johns, 96 S.W.3d at 196; Mitchell v. Smith, 779 S.W.2d at 388.
Proof of the existence of a confidential relationship, by itself, will not be sufficient to invalidate a will. Halle v. Summerfield, 199 Tenn. at 455, 287 S.W.2d at 61; In re Estate of Maddox, 60 S.W.3d at 89. It is not the relationship that concerns the courts but rather the abuse of the relationship. Robinson v. Robinson, 517 S.W.2d 202, 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974). Proof of the existence of a confidential relationship must be coupled with evidence of one or more other suspicious circumstances that give rise to a presumption of undue influence. DeLapp v. Pratt, 152 S.W.3d 530, 540 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). Accordingly, proof that a beneficiary had a confidential relationship, such as an unrestricted power of attorney, coupled with evidence of a transaction or gift to the beneficiary creates a presumption of undue influence. Matlock v. Simpson, 902 S.W.2d 384, 386 (Tenn. 1995); Johnson v. Craycraft, 914 S.W.2d 506, 510 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).
Once a contestant presents sufficient evidence to substantiate an undue influence claim, the burden of going forward shifts back to the will's proponent to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the challenged transa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|