Court reviews whether decedent was competent to make a will or to enter into a marriage contract

IN RE: ESTATE OF RAYMOND L. SMALLMAN, DECEASED, MARK SMALLMAN, ET AL., V. LINDA CARAWAY, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 12, 2011)

The two sons of decedent asked the Court to declare that their father died intestate and that his marriage to appellant a few days before he died was void because he was neither competent to make a will or enter into a marriage contract. Upon trial, the jury determined that the deceased was not of sound mind when he executed a will, a copy of which was filed in evidence, and the will was obtained through undue influence of appellant. The jury also found that the marriage between the decedent and appellant was invalid as well. The Trial Judge approved the jury verdict and appellant has appealed. We hold that material evidence supports the jury verdict as approved by the Trial Judge and remand.

Full opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/smallmanr_121211.pdf

SUSANO's dissenting opinion is available here:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/smallmanr_DIS_121211.pdf

Court reviews whether the appellant successfully rebutted the presumption of undue influence

IN RE: THE ESTATE OF FRANKLIN STEADMAN MURDAUGH, BARBARA MURDAUGH WARNER v. RUDY W. YOUNG (Tenn. Ct. App. December 8, 2011)

This case arises from a will contest. Appellant, the executor and sole beneficiary of the contested will, appeals the trial court's finding that Appellant did not meet his burden to rebut, by clear and convincing evidence, the presumption of undue influence based upon the existence of a confidential relationship between Appellant and Decedent. Finding no error, we affirm.

Full opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/murdaughf_120811.pdf

Court reviews whether the devisee can force enforcement of a contract between defendant and the decedent

TERESA SMITH, AS DEVISEE OF RONNIE CRABTREE v. LINDA D. HATFIELD (Tenn. Ct. App. December 5, 2011)

This is a breach of contract case. The defendant seller entered into a contract to sell a mobile home to the plaintiff's decedent. The contract required the decedent to make monthly payments by a date certain for eighty-four months, and if he failed to do so, all of his payments would be forfeited as rent. The decedent failed to make all of his payments in a timely manner. Later, the decedent died.

The plaintiff, the decedent's sole devisee, offered to pay the contract off by making a lump-sum payment to the defendant. The defendant rejected this offer. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the defendant, seeking to require the defendant to accept the lump-sum payment and convey the property to her. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claims upon the close of her proof, because the undisputed evidence showed that she had not made the required monthly payments under the contract.The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm and award attorney fees for a frivolous appeal.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/smitht_120511.pdf

Creditors' Claims under the Tennessee Investment Services Act of 2007

TN Attorney General Opinions
Date: 2011-11-28
Opinion Number: 11-79


QUESTION:

Whether the Tennessee Investment Services Act of 2007 requires a creditor to prove fraud in order to prevail on an action for attachment or other provisional remedy against property that is a qualified disposition to an investment services trust, or to avoid a qualified disposition to such a trust?

OPINION:

Yes. If the creditor’s claim arises before a qualified disposition, the creditor may prevail by proving actual or constructive fraud. However, if the creditor’s claim arises after a qualified disposition, the creditor must prove actual intent to defraud.

Read the full opinion at: http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/AG/2011/ag_11_79.pdf