Matlock v. Simpson
902 S.W.2d 384, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a confidential relationship, such as attorney-client, exists and the dominant party benefits from a transaction like a will, a presumption of undue influence arises which can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The existence of an attorney-client relationship or an unrestricted power of attorney establishes a confidential relationship as a matter of law, not as a question of fact for a jury.
Facts:
- Paul Simpson served as L.T. Matlock's attorney from 1966 until 1989.
- By 1989, Matlock had significant health problems, including having had cardiac surgery and a fractured hip, and was seeking help to manage his business and personal care.
- On September 6, 1989, Matlock executed an unrestricted power of attorney, drafted by Simpson, naming Simpson his attorney-in-fact.
- On the same day, Matlock executed a will, also drafted by Simpson, that left the bulk of his estate to Simpson.
- Simpson was concerned that the will he witnessed might be invalid because he was a beneficiary.
- Simpson drafted a second, identical will which Matlock executed on October 2, 1989, in a hospital room with two disinterested witnesses and Simpson present.
- Matlock died on February 4, 1990.
Procedural Posture:
- The son and daughter of L.T. Matlock initiated a will contest in the trial court against Paul Simpson, the will's executor and principal beneficiary.
- A jury in the trial court found in favor of the will, upholding its validity.
- Matlock's children, the contestants, appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, finding errors in the jury instructions.
- Simpson, as defendant-appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, which granted review to resolve a conflict in prior case law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
What is the proper standard of proof required to rebut the presumption of undue influence that arises when an attorney, who is in a confidential relationship with a testator, drafts a will in which the attorney is the principal beneficiary?
Opinions:
Majority - Wm. H.D. Fones, Sr., Special Judge
Clear and convincing evidence. The proper standard of proof required to rebut the presumption of undue influence is clear and convincing evidence, not a mere preponderance of the evidence. The court held that certain relationships, such as attorney-client or the relationship created by an unrestricted power of attorney, constitute a confidential relationship as a matter of law. When such a relationship exists and the dominant party (the attorney) receives a benefit from the other party (the client), a presumption of undue influence arises. This high standard of proof is founded in public policy to protect clients from the strong influence inherent in such fiduciary relationships. The court explicitly overruled prior Tennessee appellate cases that had applied the lower, incorrect 'preponderance of the evidence' standard.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens protections for vulnerable individuals in fiduciary relationships in Tennessee. By holding that an attorney-client relationship is confidential as a matter of law, the court removes that issue from jury speculation and creates a bright-line rule. Elevating the rebuttal standard to 'clear and convincing evidence' resolves a conflict in lower court decisions and aligns Tennessee with the majority rule, making it much more difficult for attorneys and other fiduciaries to benefit from transactions with those they serve. This precedent serves as a strong deterrent against professional overreach and potential exploitation.
