Ayers v. Shaffer, 748 S.E.2d 83

Elsie R. Smith died in 2010; Toni Shaffer and Bruce Shaffer acted as caregivers under a durable power of attorney (DPOA) executed in 2004.
Elsie also executed a 2004 will referencing a contract with Toni and Bruce for care and payment from the estate.
Plaintiffs Ayers and Riley are Elsie’s great-grandchildren and residuary legatees; Audrey Wingo is Elsie’s sister and a half-residuary legatee.
After 2007, Elsie’s care diminished, yet Toni (as agent) had continued influence; Toni sold assets and assets were retitled in various forms benefiting Toni/Bruce/Audrey.
The amended complaint alleges inter vivos transfers after Toni became Elsie’s agent and that confidential relationships created a presumption of undue influence; the circuit court sustained a demurrer to all counts.
The appeal concerns whether the circuit court properly concluded there were insufficient facts to state causes of action for undue influence or related equitable relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does a confidential relationship with Toni exist even if she did not act under the DPOA for the challenged transactions?	A confidential relationship arose from trust and habitual influence.	DPOA power not used; no confidential relationship tied to the transactions.	Yes; circuit court erred in ruling no confidential relationship between Elsie and Toni.
Do Counts 1–3, based on joint accounts, establish confidential relationships and undue influence presumption?	Joint accounts created fiduciary duties and presumptions of undue influence.	Counts fail because none allege enforceable acts under the DPOA benefiting Toni.	Counts 1–3 reversed; confidential relationship established by joint accounts and undue influence presumption.
Do Counts 4–6, alleging Toni, Bruce, and Audrey had confidential relationships apart from joint accounts, survive demurrer?	Elsie depended on Toni/Bruce; Audrey assisted and influenced financial affairs.	No confidential relationship shown absent joint-account context or explicit actions.	Counts 4–6 survive; confidential relationships alleged.
Was the circuit court correct to sustain the demurrer as to Counts 7–11 and dismiss Michael Shaffer?	Equitable relief and constructive trust claims should proceed given undue-influence evidence.	Demurrer proper for lack of specific undue-influence pleadings; only remedies remained.	Affirmed as to Counts 7–11; reversed as to Counts 1–6; remanded.

Fishburne v. Ferguson, 84 Va. 87 (Va. 1885) (undue-influence through means other than capacity may be inferred in certain contexts)
Parfitt v. Parfitt, 277 Va. 333 (Va. 2009) (confidential relationships trigger presumption of undue influence; burden shifts)
Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 268 Va. 23 (Va. 2004) (confidential relationship creates presumption of undue influence; capacity considerations not always dispositive)
Bailey v. Turnbow, 273 Va. 262 (Va. 2007) (recognizes confidential relationship and undue influence framework)
Nicholson v. Shockey, 192 Va. 270 (Va. 1951) (fiduciary relationship; presumptively fraudulent self-dealing in certain transactions)
Grubb v. Grubb, 272 Va. 45 (Va. 2006) (confidential relationship with fiduciary duties; presumption of undue influence)
Diehl v. Butts, 255 Va. 482 (Va. 1998) (confidential relationship triggers burden shift in undue-influence cases)
Rosillo v. Winters, 235 Va. 268 (Va. 1988) (standard of review for demurrers emphasizes legal sufficiency of pleadings)
Runion v. Helvestine, 256 Va. 1 (Va. 1998) (demurrer standard; review de novo on legal sufficiency)
Kaltman v. All American Pest Control, Inc., 281 Va. 483 (Va. 2011) (demurrer standard; legal sufficiency of complaint)