In Re Estate of Elam
738 S.W.2d 169 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury's verdict upholding the validity of a will against claims of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity will be affirmed if there is any material evidence to support it. A parent-child relationship does not, by itself, create a presumption of undue influence unless there is a showing of dominion and control by the beneficiary over a weakened testator.
Facts:
- On October 21, 1981, the testator, James B. Elam, a 79-year-old, lost his wife of 57 years.
- Shortly after, Elam, suffering from a leg malady, gave his foster son, Milton Griffin, power of attorney and executed a will naming Griffin as the primary beneficiary.
- Griffin, concerned about Elam's drinking, sold Elam's car without his consent, which angered Elam and led him to revoke the power of attorney on November 9, 1981.
- On the same day he revoked the power of attorney, Elam executed a new will naming his brother, Vincent Elam, as the primary beneficiary.
- On January 1, 1982, James Elam telephoned Milton Griffin, requesting help with a doctor's appointment for his leg and stating he wanted to make a new will.
- Griffin took notes of Elam's wishes for the new will, suggested an attorney, and delivered the notes to the attorney who drafted the will based on them.
- On January 4, 1982, after a doctor diagnosed Elam with severe phlebitis and recommended immediate hospitalization, Elam insisted on first going to the attorney's office.
- At the attorney's office, Elam executed a third will leaving the bulk of his estate to Griffin's wife and daughter, after which he was hospitalized and died one month later.
Procedural Posture:
- The January 4, 1982 will was filed in probate court by its proponents, Edwin A. Oakley, Evelyn Griffin, and Claudia Griffin.
- Vincent Elam, the testator's brother, contested the will, alleging undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity.
- The will contest was certified to the circuit court (a trial court) for a jury trial.
- In the first trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the proponents, upholding the will.
- Vincent Elam, as appellant, appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court), which reversed and remanded for a new trial due to an omission in jury instructions.
- At the second jury trial, the jury again found in favor of the proponents.
- Vincent Elam, as appellant, appealed a second time to the Court of Appeals, which again reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding other jury instructions erroneous.
- The proponents, as appellants, sought and were granted review by the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is there material evidence to support a jury's verdict that a will is valid when the contestant alleges the testator lacked testamentary capacity and was unduly influenced by a beneficiary who assisted in the will's preparation?
Opinions:
Majority - Brock, Chief Justice
Yes. There is material evidence to support the jury's verdict that the will is valid. An appellate court is not at liberty to re-weigh evidence but must take the strongest legitimate view of the evidence in favor of the verdict and affirm if any material evidence supports it. Regarding testamentary capacity, multiple witnesses, including the drafting attorney and a long-time friend, testified that the testator was mentally alert and understood the nature and consequences of his actions when he executed the will, which constitutes material evidence for the jury's finding. Regarding undue influence, the court found that a parent-child relationship is not presumptively a confidential one giving rise to undue influence. For such a presumption to arise, the contestant must show dominion and control by the beneficiary over a weakened testator. Here, the testator initiated the creation of the will, and Griffin merely acted as a 'messenger'; the testator even rejected Griffin's advice to postpone the signing, demonstrating he retained his free agency. The trial court's jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, correctly informed the jury that the contestant needed to prove either lack of capacity or undue influence, but not both, to invalidate the will.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high deference appellate courts give to jury verdicts, clarifying that they will not disturb a finding of fact if there is any 'material evidence' to support it. The case further refines the doctrine of undue influence by distinguishing the normal assistance an adult child might provide a parent from the level of dominion and control required to establish a confidential relationship that would raise a presumption of invalidity. It serves as a precedent that a beneficiary's involvement in the mechanics of will preparation, such as taking notes or suggesting an attorney at the testator's request, does not in itself constitute undue influence when the testator's intent originates the action and the testator remains in control of the decision-making process.
Unlock the full brief for In Re Estate of Elam