50 State Undue Influence Project: Tennessee Undue Influence Expert Definitions
In an effort to provide a better understanding for what undue influence expert psychologists look for when forming opinions about whether undue influence occurred in the execution of a will, trust, beneficiary designation, or other contractual document, I am highlighting the statutes, case law, and jury instructions specific to all 50 states. Each will be in its own blog post. Forty-second up, Tennessee.
Childress v. Currie, 74 S.W.3d 324, 329 (Tenn. 2002):
The question of whether undue influence existed should be decided by the application of sound principles and good sense to the facts of each case.
Williamson v. Upchurch, 768 S.W.2d 265, 270 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988):
In undue influence cases, the question for us is not whether the weaker party’s decision was a good one, or even whether he knew what he was doing at the time.
In re: Estate of Reynolds (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2007):
For undue influence cases, we must determine whether the weaker party’s decision was a free and independent one or whether it was induced by the dominant party.
Robinson v. Robinson, 517 S.W.2d 202, 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974):
Confidential relationships can assume a variety of forms, and thus the courts have been hesitant to define precisely what a confidential relationship is.
Givens v. Mullikin ex rel. Estate of McElwaney, 75 S.W3d 383, 410 (Tenn. 2002):
A confidential relationship is any relationship that gives one person the ability to exercise dominion and control over another.
Iacometti v. Frassinelli, 494 S.W.2d 496, 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1973):
A confidential relationship is not merely a relationship of mutual trust and confidence, but rather it is one where confidence is placed by one in the other and the recipient of that confidence is the dominant personality, with ability, because of that confidence, to influence and exercise dominion and control over the weaker or dominated party.
Kelly v. Allen, 558 S.W.2d 845, 848 (Tenn. 1977):
Fiduciary relationships are confidential per se because of the legal status of the parties. They automatically give rise to a presumption of undue influence with regard to transactions that benefit the fiduciary.
Examples of such fiduciary relationships include that between guardian and ward, attorney and client, or conservator and incompetent.
Matlock v. Simpson, 902 S.W.2d 384, 386 (Tenn. 1995):
Relationships not fiduciary in nature, even those that are inherently confidential, such as those between family members, are not confidential per se and require proof of the elements of dominion and control in order to establish the existence of a confidential relationship.
Where there is a confidential relationship, followed by a transaction wherein the dominant party received a benefit from the other party, a presumption of undue influence arises, that may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence of the fairness of the transaction.
Once a confidential relationship has been shown and a presumption of undue influence arises, the burden shifts to the dominant party to rebut the presumption by proving the fairness of the transaction by clear and convincing evidence.
Kelly v. Johns, 96 S.W.3d 189, 197-98 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002):
Evidence that two persons are members of the same family, without more, lends no support to an undue influence claim. Proof that one family member exercised dominion and control over another establishes the existence of a confidential relationship but does not make out a prima facie claim of undue influence. In addition to proving the existence of a confidential relationship between two family members, a will’s contestant must establish at least one other suspicious circumstance, such as a transaction benefitting the dominant party in the confidential relationship.