Mitchell v. Smith
779 S.W.2d 384, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 550 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A presumption of undue influence arises when a will contestant demonstrates the existence of a confidential relationship between the testator and a beneficiary, combined with other suspicious circumstances such as the beneficiary's active involvement in procuring the will or the testator's diminished mental or physical capacity.
Facts:
- In March 1986, Willie Arasho Bush was diagnosed with terminal cancer and told he had a short time to live.
- Unable to care for himself, Mr. Bush moved in with his sister, Nellie Pearl Banks, and her family on April 24, 1986.
- The Banks family, particularly their daughter Debra Gloria Banks Smith, assumed full responsibility for Mr. Bush's daily care, including his medical needs, meals, and personal hygiene.
- Mr. Bush asked Mrs. Smith to help manage his affairs, and she selected a lawyer to prepare a will and a power of attorney for him.
- On May 12, 1986, while too physically weak to leave the vehicle, Mr. Bush executed the will and an unrestricted power of attorney in Mrs. Smith's van.
- The will named Mrs. Smith as executrix and left the vast majority of Mr. Bush's estate to Mrs. Smith and her mother, Nellie Pearl Banks, while leaving only $10,000 to his daughter, Diana Mitchell.
- Mrs. Smith was given access to Mr. Bush's bank accounts and placed his will in her personal safe-deposit box.
- Mr. Bush's physical and mental health continued to decline until his death on June 2, 1986.
Procedural Posture:
- Debra Smith filed a petition to probate the May 12, 1986 will of Willie Arasho Bush in the court of first instance.
- Diana Mitchell, Mr. Bush's daughter, filed a complaint contesting the will.
- The case was transferred to the Circuit Court for Cannon County for a jury trial.
- At trial, the jury returned a verdict finding the will invalid because it had been procured through undue influence.
- The proponents of the will moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.
- The proponents (appellants Debra Smith, et al.) appealed the jury's verdict and the trial court's denial of their motion 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 the existence of a confidential relationship, combined with other suspicious circumstances surrounding the creation of a will, provide sufficient evidence of undue influence to create a question for the jury and defeat a motion for a directed verdict?
Opinions:
Majority - Koch, J.
Yes. The existence of a confidential relationship combined with other suspicious circumstances creates a jury question on the issue of undue influence. A confidential relationship is one that gives one person dominion and control over another, which can be established by an unrestricted power of attorney. Here, Mrs. Smith had a confidential relationship with Mr. Bush due to the power of attorney. This, combined with other suspicious circumstances—including Mr. Bush’s deteriorating health, Mrs. Smith’s active role in procuring the will by selecting the lawyer, the secrecy surrounding the will, and the fact that the will's terms contradicted Mr. Bush's earlier statements—was sufficient to create a presumption of undue influence. Therefore, the trial court properly denied the proponents' motion for a directed verdict and submitted the issue to the jury.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal framework in Tennessee for challenging a will on the basis of undue influence. It clarifies that while a confidential relationship alone is insufficient, its presence coupled with other 'suspicious circumstances' shifts the evidentiary burden to the will's proponent to prove the will was the testator's free and independent act. The opinion provides a non-exhaustive list of such circumstances, offering a practical guide for future litigation. This decision reinforces judicial protection for vulnerable testators and scrutinizes situations where a caretaker or fiduciary receives a substantial benefit under a will they helped procure.
