Kelly v. Allen
558 S.W.2d 845, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 666 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The normal relationship between a mentally competent parent and an adult child is not per se a confidential relationship and does not, standing alone, raise a presumption that a gift from the parent to the child is invalid due to undue influence.
Facts:
- Susie McBride Allen, an eighty-eight-year-old woman, owned a tract of real estate in Memphis.
- Allen was not impoverished by the potential conveyance, as she possessed an annual income of approximately $8,780 and had cash savings of around $46,000.
- On April 18, 1975, Allen wrote a letter to her daughter, Geraldine A. Kelly, who lived in Texas, urging her to come to Memphis immediately to have the home transferred into Kelly's name.
- The letter from Allen explicitly stated, 'come now, to me, while I’m yet here, to tie this home up, So no one can take it away from you.'
- In response, Kelly traveled to Memphis, where she arranged for an attorney to prepare a quitclaim deed and for a notary public to take the acknowledgement.
- On May 10, 1975, Allen executed the quitclaim deed, conveying her real estate to Kelly.
Procedural Posture:
- Susie McBride Allen filed a suit in chancery court (a court of first instance) seeking rescission of the deed she had granted to her daughter, Geraldine A. Kelly.
- The Chancellor (trial court judge) dismissed Allen's complaint, ruling in favor of Kelly.
- Allen's substituted plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the Chancellor's decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the Chancellor's decision, finding that a confidential relationship existed and required reversal.
- Kelly, as petitioner, then appealed the Court of Appeals' decision 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 the existence of a parent-child relationship, by itself, create a presumption of undue influence sufficient to invalidate a deed from the parent to the child?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Henry
No. The normal relationship between a mentally competent parent and an adult child does not, by itself, constitute a confidential relationship that raises a presumption of undue influence. For such a presumption to arise, there must be a showing of additional circumstances, such as dominion and control by the stronger party over the weaker, the donor's senility or mental deterioration, or evidence of fraud or duress that destroyed the donor's free agency. The court reasoned that it is not influence, but undue influence, that invalidates a conveyance. Here, the evidence, particularly the letter written by Susie McBride Allen, indicated that the decision to convey the property originated with her and was not the result of undue influence by her daughter, Geraldine A. Kelly. Kelly's actions in procuring an attorney were deemed to be in furtherance of her mother's explicit request, not an exertion of undue influence.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard for proving undue influence in transactions between parents and children in Tennessee. It establishes that plaintiffs cannot merely rely on the existence of a close family relationship to shift the burden of proof to the recipient of a gift. The ruling protects the donative intent of competent parents, making it more difficult for other parties to challenge such transfers without presenting specific evidence of domination, diminished capacity, or coercion. It firmly distinguishes the normal parent-child relationship from inherently fiduciary relationships (like guardian-ward), where dealings are subject to much stricter scrutiny.
Unlock the full brief for Kelly v. Allen