BETTY C. GOFF CARTWRIGHT v. JACKSON CAPITAL, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. June 5, 2012)
This appeal involves various claims by a beneficiary of several trusts against his sister and her husband, who serve as the trustee and co-trustee of some of the trusts. The defendants/trustees filed a motion for partial summary judgment, claiming that they had followed the terms of the trusts and paid the beneficiary all distributions to which he was entitled pursuant to the trust documents. In response, the beneficiary asserted that the trust documents were void either because they were fabricated, or because he executed them due to undue influence. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, and the beneficiary voluntarily dismissed all of his remaining claims. The beneficiary appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/cartwrightb_060512.pdf
Showing posts with label Undue Influence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Undue Influence. Show all posts
Monday, June 11, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Court reviews whether a confidential relationship existed between the decedent and caretakers who influenced him to change his will
IN RE ESTATE OF HOMER P. NORTON (Tenn. Ct. App. February 23, 2012)
This lawsuit was filed by the decedent’s nephew and the nephew’s wife alleging that the caretakers of the decedent improperly influenced him to change his will. The proponents of the decedent’s will filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that no confidential relationship existed between the decedent and the caretakers in regard to the will. The trial court granted the proponents’ motion, finding that proof of a confidential relationship was necessary to pursue a will contest on the ground of undue influence, and that no such confidential relationship existed between decedent and the caretakers. The contestants appeal. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/nortonh_022312.pdf
This lawsuit was filed by the decedent’s nephew and the nephew’s wife alleging that the caretakers of the decedent improperly influenced him to change his will. The proponents of the decedent’s will filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that no confidential relationship existed between the decedent and the caretakers in regard to the will. The trial court granted the proponents’ motion, finding that proof of a confidential relationship was necessary to pursue a will contest on the ground of undue influence, and that no such confidential relationship existed between decedent and the caretakers. The contestants appeal. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/nortonh_022312.pdf
Monday, January 30, 2012
Court reviews whether a decedent's son breached his fiduciary duty and used undue influence to obtain money from the decedent while she was living
IN RE ESTATE OF VIOLA B. COPAS consolidated with NORMAN COPAS, ET AL. V. RANDALL COPAS (Tenn. Ct. App. January 20, 2012)
This appeal concerns whether the son of a decedent breached his fiduciary duty under a power of attorney and as the personal representative of the decedent's estate. The siblings sued their brother, asserting that he used undue influence over their mother in order to unlawfully obtain her funds for his benefit to the exclusion of his mother and her estate. The brother argued that the money was properly used to take care of his mother and to run her farm. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the siblings for $2,040,276, plus attorney fees totaling $102,576.36, upon finding that the brother failed to meet his burden to rebut, by clear and convincing evidence, the presumption of undue influence. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/copasv_012012.pdf
This appeal concerns whether the son of a decedent breached his fiduciary duty under a power of attorney and as the personal representative of the decedent's estate. The siblings sued their brother, asserting that he used undue influence over their mother in order to unlawfully obtain her funds for his benefit to the exclusion of his mother and her estate. The brother argued that the money was properly used to take care of his mother and to run her farm. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the siblings for $2,040,276, plus attorney fees totaling $102,576.36, upon finding that the brother failed to meet his burden to rebut, by clear and convincing evidence, the presumption of undue influence. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/copasv_012012.pdf
Friday, January 13, 2012
Court reviews a motion to set aside a jury verdict in a will contest case
IN RE: THE ESTATE OF BESSIE LOUISE THORNTON (Tenn. Ct. App. January 13, 2012)
In this will contest, the jury found that a confidential relationship existed between the principal beneficiary of the will and the testatrix; however, the jury also found that the will was not the result of undue influence and, therefore, the will was valid.
The contestant filed post-trial motions pursuant to Rules 50.02 and 59 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to set aside the judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict, and alternatively, for a new trial. The trial court set aside the judgment of the jury, and entered judgment declaring the will invalid on the grounds that it was the result of undue influence. The trial court did not expressly rule on the alternative motion for a new trial.
The proponent of the will appeals, contending the trial court erred in setting aside the jury's verdict and entering judgment in favor of the contestant. We agree that the trial court erred by entering a judgment notwithstanding the verdict; however, we have also concluded that the trial court, acting in its role as thirteenth juror, implicitly and conditionally granted the contestant's motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we remand the case for a new trial.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/thorntonb_011312.pdf
In this will contest, the jury found that a confidential relationship existed between the principal beneficiary of the will and the testatrix; however, the jury also found that the will was not the result of undue influence and, therefore, the will was valid.
The contestant filed post-trial motions pursuant to Rules 50.02 and 59 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to set aside the judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict, and alternatively, for a new trial. The trial court set aside the judgment of the jury, and entered judgment declaring the will invalid on the grounds that it was the result of undue influence. The trial court did not expressly rule on the alternative motion for a new trial.
The proponent of the will appeals, contending the trial court erred in setting aside the jury's verdict and entering judgment in favor of the contestant. We agree that the trial court erred by entering a judgment notwithstanding the verdict; however, we have also concluded that the trial court, acting in its role as thirteenth juror, implicitly and conditionally granted the contestant's motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we remand the case for a new trial.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/thorntonb_011312.pdf
Monday, December 12, 2011
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
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
Thursday, December 8, 2011
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
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
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Court Reviews Whether Defendants Depleted the Decedent's Assets Such that they Deprived the Plaintiff of her Specific Bequest in the Will
IN RE ESTATE OF ELOISE J. STOREY,
PEGGIE SHERRILL HUBER v. LAWRENCE G. YOHANEK, CPA, A/K/A LARRY G. YOHANEK, SHARRON S. YOHANEK, AND JOHN GARY STOREY (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2011)
This lawsuit was filed by the decedent's daughter against other family members alleging undue influence, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy. After the decedent suffered a stroke, the family members, as attorney in fact and signatory on the decedent's bank accounts, made gifts from the decedent's assets to themselves and to other family members.
After the decedent died, the plaintiff daughter filed this lawsuit, alleging that the defendant family members wrongfully depleted the decedent's assets during her lifetime so as to deprive the plaintiff of her specific bequest in the decedent's will. The defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment on various grounds.
The trial court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion finding, inter alia, that the plaintiff did not submit evidence to support several of her claims, and that several claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Plaintiff now appeals.
On appeal, we apply the Tennessee Supreme court's revised analytical framework for summary judgment motions, requiring the defendant movants to either conclusively establish facts supporting an affirmative defense or negate an essential element of the plaintiff's claim. Applying this standard, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/storeye_053111.pdf
This lawsuit was filed by the decedent's daughter against other family members alleging undue influence, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy. After the decedent suffered a stroke, the family members, as attorney in fact and signatory on the decedent's bank accounts, made gifts from the decedent's assets to themselves and to other family members.
After the decedent died, the plaintiff daughter filed this lawsuit, alleging that the defendant family members wrongfully depleted the decedent's assets during her lifetime so as to deprive the plaintiff of her specific bequest in the decedent's will. The defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment on various grounds.
The trial court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion finding, inter alia, that the plaintiff did not submit evidence to support several of her claims, and that several claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Plaintiff now appeals.
On appeal, we apply the Tennessee Supreme court's revised analytical framework for summary judgment motions, requiring the defendant movants to either conclusively establish facts supporting an affirmative defense or negate an essential element of the plaintiff's claim. Applying this standard, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/storeye_053111.pdf
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Court Reviews a Whether a Will was the Product of Undue Influence
THOMAS L. GRIMES, ET AL. v. HELEN CORNELL (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2011)
This appeal involves a will contest in which the trial court found that a will executed in 2005 was the product of undue influence and, as a consequence, admitted a will executed by the testator in 2004 to probate. The proponent of the 2005 Will appeals the finding of undue influence as well as the dismissal of her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and award of attorney's fees to Plaintiffs to be paid from the estate. We affirm the trial court in all respects.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/grimest_052411.pdf
This appeal involves a will contest in which the trial court found that a will executed in 2005 was the product of undue influence and, as a consequence, admitted a will executed by the testator in 2004 to probate. The proponent of the 2005 Will appeals the finding of undue influence as well as the dismissal of her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and award of attorney's fees to Plaintiffs to be paid from the estate. We affirm the trial court in all respects.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/grimest_052411.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)