Kelley v. Johns
2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 495, 96 S.W.3d 189, 2002 WL 1484453 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A presumption of undue influence arises when a will's contestant proves the existence of a confidential relationship between the testator and the beneficiary, along with suspicious circumstances such as a transaction that benefits the dominant party. This presumption can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
Facts:
- In 1978, Porter B. Johns, Sr. and his wife executed reciprocal wills leaving their estates to each other, and then in equal shares to their nine children.
- After his wife's death in 1978, the 79-year-old Porter Johns moved in with his son, Mahlon Johns, and his wife.
- Porter Johns became increasingly dependent on Mahlon for his daily needs, and Mahlon gained significant control over his father's finances, including being added to one bank account and given permission to write checks on another.
- Between 1979 and 1987, Mahlon Johns wrote numerous checks from his father's accounts payable to himself or his businesses.
- During 1982 and 1983, Porter Johns's physical and mental health declined significantly; he suffered from emphysema, vertigo, confusion, anxiety, and delusions, for which he was prescribed Haldol.
- On February 9, 1983, Porter Johns, then 84, executed a new will leaving his 450-acre farm entirely to Mahlon Johns and his money to his remaining children.
- Mahlon Johns and his wife allegedly isolated Porter Johns from his other children after he moved into their home.
- Porter Johns told one of his daughters that he had reluctantly signed a document for Mahlon after Mahlon claimed two of his other daughters intended to put him in a nursing home.
Procedural Posture:
- Mahlon Johns submitted his father's February 9, 1983 will for probate in the Maury County Probate Court.
- Six of Porter B. Johns, Sr.'s other children filed a complaint contesting the will.
- The case was transferred to the Circuit Court for Maury County for a trial.
- A jury found that Porter Johns possessed testamentary capacity, but also found that a confidential relationship existed with Mahlon Johns and the will was procured by undue influence.
- The trial court denied Mahlon Johns's motion for a directed verdict.
- The trial court entered a judgment invalidating the will.
- The Estate of Mahlon Johns, the proponent of the will, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals 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 material evidence support a jury's verdict that a will was procured by undue influence where the testator was in declining health and depended on his son, who had control over his finances and was the sole beneficiary of his largest asset under the new will?
Opinions:
Majority - William C. Koch, Jr., J.
Yes, material evidence supports the jury's verdict. A jury's findings of fact will be set aside only if there is no material evidence to support them. In this case, the contestants established a prima facie case of undue influence by presenting evidence of both a confidential relationship and numerous suspicious circumstances. A confidential relationship, which involves dominion and control, was supported by evidence of Porter Johns's declining health, his dependence on his son, and Mahlon Johns's significant control over his father's financial assets. The court also found at least seven other suspicious circumstances, including the testator's advanced age and poor health, the unnatural disposition of the property compared to his prior statements, the secrecy surrounding the will, and evidence that the testator was emotionally distraught and may have been misled. Taken together, this evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that the will was the product of undue influence.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the legal framework for challenging a will based on undue influence through circumstantial evidence in Tennessee. It clarifies that a close familial relationship, such as parent-adult child, can transform into a confidential relationship when elements of dependency, dominion, and control are present. The case provides a clear example of the types of 'suspicious circumstances' that, when combined with a confidential relationship, create a powerful, rebuttable presumption of undue influence. This precedent strengthens protections for vulnerable testators and places a high burden on dominant beneficiaries in confidential relationships to prove a will was executed freely and independently.
Unlock the full brief for Kelley v. Johns