Tony Frank v. Ronnie Fields, E2016-00809-COA-R3-CV

Decedent Ray L. Frank (d. Jan. 18, 2012, age 95) executed multiple wills and powers of attorney; his 2010 will divided his estate among nieces/nephews including defendant Ronnie Fields.
Ronnie Fields was Decedent’s attorney-in-fact (powers executed in 2005 and 2010), caregiver/driver in later years, and later served as executor; several bank accounts and CDs were designated POD or held jointly in favor of Fields.
In Jan. 2012 (immediately after Decedent’s death), Fields withdrew approximately $458,881.87 from Decedent’s POD/joint accounts and retained the funds; plaintiffs (three nieces/nephews) sued alleging undue influence and sought return of the funds to the estate.
At bench trial the court found a confidential relationship (power of attorney exercised to benefit Fields) raising a presumption of undue influence as to most accounts, but concluded Fields rebutted that presumption by clear and convincing evidence (Decedent was competent, had independent legal and bank advice, understood POD accounts, and consistently changed documents over years).
Trial court dismissed the complaint; on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that Fields rebutted the undue-influence presumption.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fields rebutted the presumption of undue influence arising from a confidential relationship when he received POD/joint-account benefits	The POD/joint-account transfers were procured by undue influence: a confidential relationship existed, Decedent was blind/physically diminished, and Fields actively procured the transfers contrary to Decedent’s testamentary scheme	Fields rebutted the presumption by clear and convincing evidence: Decedent was mentally competent, received independent legal and bank advice, understood POD accounts, and repeatedly made similar changes over time	Affirmed: Court held Fields rebutted the presumption by clear and convincing evidence and the transactions reflected Decedent’s free will

Childress v. Currie, 74 S.W.3d 324 (Tenn. 2002) (confidential-relationship undue-influence framework for will contests)
Matlock v. Simpson, 902 S.W.2d 384 (Tenn. 1995) (presumption arises when dominant party in confidential relationship receives a benefit)
Crain v. Brown, 823 S.W.2d 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (independent advice can rebut undue-influence presumption)
In re Estate of Hamilton, 67 S.W.3d 786 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (burden and standard for rebutting presumption of undue influence)
DeLapp v. Pratt, 152 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (lists suspicious circumstances courts consider in undue-influence cases)
Parish v. Kemp, 179 S.W.3d 524 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (presumption of undue influence applies to fiduciary/confidential relationships)
Mitchell v. Smith, 779 S.W.2d 384 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (enumerating common suspicious circumstances relevant to undue influence)