Childress v. Currie
74 S.W. 3d 324, 2002 Tenn. LEXIS 194 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A confidential relationship, which would give rise to a presumption of undue influence, does not arise as a matter of law from the mere execution of an unrestricted power of attorney if that power has not been exercised.
Facts:
- In February 1994, Virginia Mary Leonard executed a will leaving her entire estate to her friend and former employer, Billy Joe Childress.
- In April 1997, Natasha Barnes Currie, Leonard's cousin, began living with and caring for the 78-year-old Leonard on a full-time basis.
- On May 22, 1997, Leonard asked Currie to drive her to a funeral home.
- While Currie and another relative waited outside, Leonard met with the funeral home director, Frank Currie.
- During this meeting, Leonard purchased a pre-arranged funeral plan and then asked Frank Currie to draft a new will and a power of attorney.
- Leonard executed the new will, leaving her entire estate to Natasha Currie, and also executed an unrestricted power of attorney naming Natasha Currie as her attorney-in-fact.
- Natasha Currie was not present during the drafting or execution of these documents and was not aware of their existence until after they were signed.
- In early June 1997, after the will and power of attorney were executed, Leonard asked Currie to use the power of attorney to withdraw funds to pay bills.
Procedural Posture:
- After Virginia Leonard's death, her 1994 will naming Billy Joe Childress as beneficiary was admitted to probate in the Lauderdale County Probate Court.
- Natasha Currie filed a petition contesting the 1994 will and offering a 1997 will that named her as the sole beneficiary.
- The will contest was transferred to the Lauderdale County Circuit Court for a jury trial.
- The jury returned a verdict finding the 1997 will to be valid.
- The trial court judge granted Childress's motion for a directed verdict, setting aside the jury's verdict on the grounds that a confidential relationship existed as a matter of law, creating a presumption of undue influence that was not rebutted.
- Currie, as the appellant, appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, finding no confidential relationship existed because Currie was unaware of the power of attorney when the will was executed.
- Childress, now the appellant, was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a confidential relationship arise as a matter of law when an unrestricted power of attorney is executed but not exercised, thereby creating a presumption of undue influence over a contemporaneous will?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice E. Riley Anderson
No, a confidential relationship does not arise as a matter of law merely from the execution of an unexercised power of attorney. The core definition of a confidential relationship requires proof of dominion and control. When an unrestricted power of attorney is executed but has not yet been exercised, there is no dominion and control, and therefore no confidential relationship exists based solely on the unexercised power. This case is distinguishable from precedents like Matlock v. Simpson, where other factors, such as an active attorney-client relationship or the beneficiary's direct involvement in procuring the will, established dominion and control. Here, Natasha Currie was unaware of the power of attorney at the time of its execution and had not exercised any authority under it, so no presumption of undue influence arose.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and narrows the precedent set in Matlock v. Simpson, which had been interpreted to mean that any unrestricted power of attorney automatically creates a confidential relationship. The court establishes a critical distinction between the mere execution of a power of attorney and its actual exercise. This holding makes it more difficult for will contestants to establish a presumption of undue influence, as they can no longer rely solely on the existence of a power of attorney. Instead, they must present additional evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary actually exerted dominion and control over the testator at the time the will was made.
Unlock the full brief for Childress v. Currie