Gala Johnson-Murray v. Rodney Burns
2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 168
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Decedent Elizabeth Patton (age 95) executed a November 9, 2010 will (leaving her estate to stepson Rodney Burns) and a quitclaim deed the same day conveying her home as joint tenants with survivorship to herself, Rodney, and his wife Aretha; a codicil followed in 2011. Plaintiffs are two nieces who were beneficiaries under a 1985 will.
- Defendants (Rodney and Aretha Burns) lived next to the decedent, provided long‑term care after her 2005 stroke, and assisted with bills and appointments; three powers of attorney were executed in September 2010 but were not shown to have been exercised.
- Plaintiffs sued to contest the 2010 will, codicil, and deed alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence; the trial court submitted the contest to a jury which found the 2010 will and deed valid.
- During jury deliberations the jury asked whether Rodney, as attorney‑in‑fact, could sign the will and deed for the decedent; the trial judge answered “Yes” and cited Tenn. Code Ann. § 66‑5‑104.
- On appeal Plaintiffs argued (1) the jury verdict lacked material evidence support because a confidential relationship and undue influence were proven and (2) the court erred in answering the jury’s question and supplementing instructions with the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury verdict (validity of 2010 will and deed) is supported by material evidence | Nieces: evidence established a confidential relationship and undue influence; verdict is unsupported | Burns: no confidential relationship shown as powers of attorney were unexercised and evidence supports decedent’s competence | Affirmed: material evidence supports jury finding no confidential relationship and no undue influence |
| Whether execution of the 2010 will complied with Wills Act if signed by attorney‑in‑fact | Nieces: POA could not validly sign will for testator; if so, invalid | Burns: as attorney‑in‑fact he could sign instruments for principal | Held for appeal: Trial court erred to instruct jury that POA could sign the will — Wills Act requires the testator’s signature/acknowledgment and a POA may not "signify" for the testator |
| Whether an attorney‑in‑fact could validly sign the deed and whether jury should be told consequences | Nieces: if POA signed to benefit himself, deed presumptively invalid and defendant must rebut with clear and convincing evidence | Burns: POA may sign property instruments under Tenn. Code Ann. § 66‑5‑104 | Court: POA could sign deeds under § 66‑5‑104, but the trial court’s answer omitted the legal presumptions (presumption of undue advantage and burden to prove fairness), so the instruction was incomplete/error |
| Whether the trial court’s erroneous answer/instruction was reversible error | Nieces: erroneous answer and supplemental statutory instruction likely affected outcome | Burns: overall charge and evidence supported verdict; any error harmless | Held: Error in answering was harmless — considering the full charge and record, the mistakes did not more probably than not affect the verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Meals ex rel. Meals v. Ford Motor Co., 417 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. 2013) (standard for reviewing whether jury findings are supported by material evidence)
- Akers v. Prime Succession of Tenn., Inc., 387 S.W.3d 495 (Tenn. 2012) (appellate review requires viewing evidence in strongest light in favor of verdict)
- Childress v. Currie, 74 S.W.3d 324 (Tenn. 2002) (unexercised power of attorney alone does not create legal confidential relationship)
- Matlock v. Simpson, 902 S.W.2d 384 (Tenn. 1995) (family relationships do not automatically establish a confidential relationship without dominion and control)
- In re Estate of Chastain, 401 S.W.3d 612 (Tenn. 2012) (Tennessee Execution of Wills Act requires testator’s signature/acknowledgment; statutory formalities are indispensable)
- In re Estate of Elam, 738 S.W.2d 169 (Tenn. 1987) (conveyances by agent that benefit the agent create a presumption of improper advantage and require clear and convincing evidence to rebut)