### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON Se pte mb er

18, 200 8 S es sio n
SANDRA KAYE KEMP PARISH , ET AL 

### . v. J ERRY DONALD KEMP, ET UX 

### .

Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Carr oll Coun ty No. 01-CV -0032 Ron E. Harmon, Chancellor

No. W2007-02207-C OA-R3-C V - Filed Dec ember 11, 2008

Th is c a se c ome s to us a s an intr a -f amil y dis pute ov e r the va lid ity

of a no na g e na ri an’ s in te r v ivo s g if

ts
and wi ll d e vis e s. Af

te r t his Court he ld t hat th e re wa s a

pr e sumpt io n th at D e fe nd ants ha d und uly inf lue nc e d th e de c e de nt, the tr ia l c ourt fo un d u po n r e mand

that th e De fe nd ants ha d o ve rc ome thi s presumption and, t h er efor e, upheld the w ill convey ance s and inter vivos g if ts t o th e De fe nd ants

. Be cause the evidenc e does not preponde rate ag ainst the t rial cour t’s finding that Def

endants re butted this presumption of undue influenc e, we aff irm the trial cour

t’s deter minations.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Cha nc e r y C our t A ff ir me d; and Rem anded

D AVI D R. F ARMER , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A LA N E. H I G H ERS , P.J., W.S., and J. S TE VE N S TA FF O RD , J., joined.

Kenne th Ray Jones, Jr., Na s h v il le , Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellants, Sandra K aye K emp Parish, Marilyn Coleman Aten, Ange la Aten, Ga ry Ha rlan Colem an , Sr., Gary H . Coleman, Jr., Vicky Coleman Bird, Jimmi e Austin Kemp, Thomas A . Kemp, Micha el Kemp, Da vid Argo and N ancy Petty.

Rob e rt T. Ke e ton , Jr. An d Laur a A. Ke e ton , Hun tin gd on , Te nn e sse e , for the app e lle e s, Je rry D on a ld Kemp and A nnie Jo Kemp.

OP IN ION

Proc e dural H

ist or y Plaintiffs/Appellants (“Plaintiffs”) filed their Complaint with the trial court o n M ar ch 2, 20 01 , cont est in g Mam ie F e smi re ’s (“ Mr s. F e smi re ” ) w ill and va ri ou s inter vivos g if

ts t hat Mr s. Fe smire made to De fenda nts/Appellees Jerry

Do nald Kemp a

nd Annie Jo Kemp (toge ther “ the Kemps”) . After

a four day

trial, the jury

returne d a ver dict in favor of the Kemps. Plaintiffs appea led the jury

verdic t to this Court; because of an e rrone ous instruction submit ted to the jury , we rema nded this case for a

new tria l and instructed the trial court that the Kemps and Mrs. Fe smire’s relationship cr eate d a rebuttable presumption of undue influe nce. Parish v. Kemp , 179 S.W .3d 524,-2-

533–535 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). U pon rema nd, Pl ai n t i ff

s waived the ir rig ht to a jury trial. The parties stipulated that proof prese nted at a ne w trial w o u l d b e t h e same as that pre sented at the previous tr ia l an d s u

b mi tt e d th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt d e c id e th e is s u e s b a s e d u p o n th e r e c o r d of the pr e vio us tr ia l, br ie fs fr om bo th pa rt ie s, and or a l argume nt. Th e tr ia l c ourt the n e nte re d ju dg me nt i n fa vo r o f t he Ke mps on Se pte mbe r 17 , 20 07 , and the Pla int if fs fi le d a tim e ly no tic e of

a pp e a l to thi s Court on September 26, 2007.

I n it s f ina l ju dg me nt, the tr ia l c ourt ma de the fo llo wi ngfi nd ing s: 1) The de cea sed wa s at all times i n q u es t i o n in control of her mental fa culties and
ve ry he a ds tr on g in b oth

he r o pin ion s a

nd he r a c tio ns

. 2) That se vera l witnesses cre dibly testified t hat Mrs. F esmire wa s alert a nd there was no cre dible proof that Mrs. F esmire wa s not of sound mind. 3) Mrs. Fesmire met with respe cted local attorney s who g ave he r advic e indepe ndent of third par

ties, and it appear ed she a cted upon he r own de sires and w ishes with the
a dv ic e and

c on se nt o f s a id c ouns e l. 4) Mr s. F e smi re a c te d in de pe nd e ntl y in t he pr e pa ra tio n o f h e r w ill in 1 99 9; t hat it evidenc ed her

intent a nd not that of third parties, and that she wa s well awa re of the conseque nces of

her a ctions. 5) The joint banking acc ount transac tions wer e done by Mrs. Fe smire’s own intent without undue influence and with awa rene ss of the conse quence s of her actions. 6) Th e c ourt

did no t f ind any a c tio n o n th e pa

rt of Mr s. F e smi re that w a s c on tr ary to her inter est or showe d undue influenc e.
Stan dard of Revie w Upon re mand, the trial c ourt deter mined that the Kemps re butted the pre sumption of undue influence and ente red judg ment for the D efe ndants. We review the trial cour

t ’s deter mination de
n o vo an d p resume the corr ectne ss of the trial cour t’s finding s unless the evidenc e pre ponderates otherwise. T enn. R. App. P. 13(d). We will not rever se the trial court’ s fac tual finding s unless they
are contra ry to the preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. Berryhill v. Rhode s , 21 S.W .3d 188, 190 (Tenn. 20 00 ). We r e vie w m ixed qu e sti on s o f l aw a

nd fa c t de novo , w ithno pr e sumpt ion of c or re c tne ss. State v. Thacke r , 164 S.W .3d 208, 248 (Tenn. 2005)

.
I n a dd iti on , th is Court wi ll not re e va luate the tr ia l ju dg e ’s a sse ssm e nt o f w itn e ss c re dib ili ty absent c lear

and convinc ing e vidence to the contra ry

. In reEs tate of B ur

g , M2006-00065-COA- R3- CV, 2007 WL 283137, at *11 (Te nn. Ct. App. J an. 31, 2007) ( no perm. app. filed )

. B e c ause the pa rt ie s su bmi tte d th is c a se to t

he tr ia l c ourt

ba se d la rg e ly up on the re c or d f

ro m a pr e vio us jur

y tr ia l,-3-

the pr oo f p re se nte d to the tr ia l c ourt in t his c a se is d oc ume nta

ry e vid e nc e . Wher e the tr ia l c ourt is assessing documentar

y evidenc e, this Court will gene rally drawits own conclusions reg arding
cre dibilit y

without defer

ring to the trial court’ s judgme nt. Br y an t v

. Ba pti st H e alt h S y s. Ho meCar e of E. Tennessee , 213 S.W .3d 743, 750 (Tenn. 2006). I n the unique cir cumstance s here , howeve r, the same judg e who issued the opi nion upon rema nd conducte d the j ury trial which is the s ubject of the appellate rec ord; this Court reverse d this case on its first appe al only beca use of an er

roneous jury i n s t ru ct i o n , an d

t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l at edt h at t h e p ro o f o nre m an d wa s p re ci s el y

wh at t h e t ri al j u d ge hear d during the first trial. Althoug h the trial cour t review ed tra

nscripts and de positions upon
rema nd, it heard t h e wi t n esses testify during the par

ties’ first trial and ha s first-hand impre ssions
re g ard ingwe ig ht a

nd c re dib ili ty . B e c a

us e the tr ia l ju dg e wa s, the re fo re , in th e bes t po si ti on

to evaluate witness cr edibility , we will not ree valuat e h i s cre dibilit y assessments abse nt clear and convincingevidenc e. In re Es tate of B ur g , 2007 WL 283137, at *11.

Fac ts

Mrs. Fe smire and he r husband, How ard F es m i re d i d not have a ny children, but e ach ha d
sever al brothers and sisters and many niece s and nephew s. Both Plaintiffs and De fenda nts are the F e smi re s’ nie c e s and

ne ph e ws . T he F e smi re s l iv e d to g e the r i n A tw oo d te nd inga ph arm a c y

un til May 1996, when Mr. F esmire pa ssed awa y . Three wee ks later, Mrs. F esmire f ell in her carpor

t and injured her hip. Af

ter he r injury , Mrs. Fe smire could not stay alone a nd she moved in with her nie ce, Marily n Aten (“ Mrs. Aten” ), and Mr s. Aten’s husband. At that time, Mr s. Fe smire was e ighty -nine y ear s old and first lear

ned that she had approximately $900,000.00 in sa vings acc ounts. The par

ties ag ree that Mrs. Fe smire and Mrs. A ten did not ge t along particula rly well, and within a f

ew we eks Mr s. Fe smi re we nt t o li ve wi th t he Ke mps . T he pa

rt ie s d isp ute the un de rl yingc a us e of Mr s. Fe smire’s departure ; Mrs. Aten claims that she wanted Mrs. Fe smire to leave beca use Mrs. F esmire
re fu se d to g iv e mo ney

fo r h ou se ho ld e xpe ns e s and Mr s. F e smi re wa s h a ssl ingAunt N e ll, Mr s. At e n’ s mo the r a

nd Mr s. F e smi re ’s y oung e r s ist e r, wh o a lso liv e d wi th t he At e ns . T he Ke mps c la im that Mrs. Fe smire wante d to leave be cause she fe lt that Mrs. At en was overly involved in her fi n an c e s

. D e s p it e an y u n c e rta inty r e g ar d in g th e c a u s e o f M r s

. F e s mi r e ’ s d e p artu r e , the evidenc e c le arl y e sta

bli sh e s that Mrs . Fe smi re we nt to live wi th the Ke mps in the fa ll of 19 96 un til he r d e a th in Aug ust 2000.

Whil e Mr s. F e smi re liv e d wi th the At e ns , sh e a ssi g ne d a po we r of a tto rn e y joi ntl y to M rs

. Aten and Mr s. Kemp. Almost immediately afte r she moved in with the Ke mps, Mrs. Fesmire visited
a tto rn e y Jame s We bb (“ Mr . Webb ” ) to re vo ke Mr s. At e n’ s pow e r o f atto rn e y , n a me Annie Jo Ke mp and Jer ry Do na ld K e mp a s h e r new att orney s- in- fa c t, a nd c ha ng e he r w ill . M r. Web b o ri g ina lly draf ted re ciproc al wills for Mr. and Mrs. Fe smire in 1988 that conveyed their pr operty first to eac h oth e r a nd the n to th eir c omb ine d f amil ie s. Mr . We bb te sti fi e d th a t th e on ly c ha ng e s th a t Mr s. Fe smire made t o h er 1 9 8 8 will in August 1996 wa s to specifica lly devise he r house in Atwood, Tenne ssee to the Ke mps and to leave Elta Fe smire, Mrs. Fe smire’s mentally unstable sister-in-la

w, her inhe ritance in trust, with the Kemps as trustees.-4-

When M r s

. F e s mi r e me t w it h M r

. We b b in

A u g u s t 1 9 9 6 , th e K e mp s w e r e p r e s e n t at t he beg inning of

the meeting

. Mr. Webb te stified that he met with Mr s. Fe smire alone, howeve r, af ter she expressed an interest in le aving money to the Kemps. Jerry

Donald Ke mp admits that he joked
a bo ut Mr s. F e smi re g ivi ng the m $2 00 ,0 00 .0 0 a t that me e tin g

. Mr

. Web b e xpla ine d th a t at th a t ti me Mrs. Fe smire private ly

told him “Yeah, you know, they ’re g ood to me, and they ’re g oing to take ca re of me, a nd they ’ll keep me from having to g o to a nursing home, and they ’re g oing to have to add
on to t he ir ho us e ” but the n ind ic a te d that sh e jus t wa s no t sure

. Mr . We bb , th e re fo re , e xpla ine d to Mrs. Fe smire and the K emps that he was not g oing to dr aw up doc uments convey ing $200,000.00 to the Kemps. He went ahe ad that same day , howeve r, and prepa red the power

of attorne y

and the
c od ic il l e a vin g Mr s. F e smi re ’s ho us e to t he Ke mps

.
Ba nk rec ords i n d i cate that a fe w wee ks later Mrs. F esmire r enew ed seve ral one hundredthousand dollar Certific ates of D eposit (“CDs”) and made them pay able to t h e Ke m ps upon her de a th. I t w a s n ot u

nti l th e fa ll o f 1 99 8 th a t Mr s. F e smi re re ne we d th os e CD s with M r. and Mr s. Ke mp a s jo int

a c c ount h old e rs . A lth ou g h th e Ke mps wo uld of te n use th eir po we r o f atto rn e y to
rene w M rs. Fesmire’s CDs, bank teller s at all but one of the ba nks where Mrs. Fe smire kept her CDs testified that Mrs. F esmire wa s prese nt a nd persona lly authorized adding the Kemps a s joint account ho lde rs

. Ar ound the tim e Mr s. F e smi re mov e d in wi th t he Ke mps , s he be g an w ri tin g c he c ks pa y a ble to t he Ke mps . M rs . K e mp t e sti fi e d that the se c he c ks we re g e ne ra l re imb ur se me nts fo r so me of Mr s. Fe smire’s expenses; f

or example, the Kemps purcha sed Mrs. Fe smire two complete wa rdrobes during the time that she lived with the m. Be g inning in F ebrua ry 1997, Mrs. Fe smire started pa ying some of the Ke mps’ bills i n lieu of re imbursing them dire ctly . Mrs. Kemp testified that she
su g g e ste d that Mrs . F e smi re pa y the bil ls r a the r t

ha n ma kin g c he c ks out to he r d ir e c tly be c a us e it
wo uld be e a sie r for th em to ke e p u p w ithwh a t e xpe ns e s Mr s. F e smi re wa s p aying . M rs . K e mp explained that Mrs. Fe smire was the first one to g o throug h the mail and that Mrs. F esmire de cided which expenses and how

much towar d eac h bill she wanted to pay

.
Mr s. F e smi re me t w itha tto rn e y D. D. Ma dd ox (“ Mr . Mad do x”) in No ve mbe r 1 99 6 to dis c us s chang ing her will a g ain, and they met ag ain in January 1997 to sig n the draf ted will. T h e Kemps br ou g ht M rs . F e smi re to M r. Ma dd ox’s of fi c e but w e re no t pr e se nt whe n M r. Ma dd ox me t w ithMr s. F e smi re or

wh e n M rs . F e smi re signed the wi ll. At the ir me e tin g , M r. Ma dd ox dis c us se d M rs

. Fe smire’s asse ts, sugg ested g ifting prior to death and the t ax ramifications of such g ifts, and listened to last minut e chang es that Mrs. Fe smire wanted to make to he r will. Mr. Ma ddox deter mined that Mrs. Fe smire understood that the Kemps wer e g oing to r ece ive the money in he r CDs outside of the wi ll b e c a us e the ir name s w e re on

the a c c ount.

Whe nth e y

me t, M r

. M a d d o x a ls o r e v ie w e d M r s

. F e s mi r e ’ s p r io r

w il ls an d ma d e s u r e th at Mrs. Fe smire knew who h er famil y members we re. Mr s. Fe smire’s 1988 will made a fewminor specific bequests but g ener ally left h al f o f her w ealth to her relations and half to Mr. F esmire’ s fa m i l y

. M r. M a d d o x ’s d au gh t er , wh o wa s p re s en tfo r M r. M ad d o x an d M rs

. Fe s m i re ’s m ee t i n g, testified t hat M rs. Fesmire’s 1997 will did not chang e the benef iciarie s of her

estate; it only

chang ed-5-

the a mou nts tha t e a c h b e ne fi c iary

wo uld re c e ive . U nli ke Mr s. F e smi re ’s 19 88 wi ll, the 19 97 wi ll lists s pecif

ic monetar

y bequests to eac h of the family members that she wanted to inher it from her. Mr. Maddox’s daug hter testified that Mr. Maddox particularly scrutinized Mrs. Fe smire’s intentions beca use of he r elde rly

ag e.

I n 1 99 9, Mr s. Fesm ire me t w itha tto rn e y Wal ton Wes t ( “ Mr . We st” ) a

nd c ha ng e d h e r w ill
one more time be fore her death. Although the Kemps broug ht Mrs. Fe smire to Mr. West’s office , Mr. West testified that he discussed the c hang es that Mrs. F esmire wa nted to make to h er w ill inde pth wi th h e r whe n th e Ke mps we re out of the ro om. Mr . West a lso e xpla ine d to Mr s. F e smi re in g reat detail about t he effec t of t he Kemps’ names being on the C Ds. Mr. W est further testified that Mrs. Fe smire already knew and understood what he was explaining about the C Ds, and when they discovere d that Mrs. Fe smire had insufficient funds to cover the joint account c onvey ance s and the specific monetary

bequests in t he will s, Mrs. Fe smire opt ed to take $100,000.00 be quests to eac h of the Kemps out of the w ill so t hat there would be suff icien t fu n d s i n t he estate to cover all of the bequests to other f

amily members.

Mrs. Fe smire was in he r ea rly nineties at the time she died, and she used a w alker the entire time that she lived with the Kemps. The e vidence establishes that Mrs. F esmire wa s a fr ug al woman wh o r e lie d o n th e Ke mps fo r p hy sic a l su pp or t and tr ans po rt a tio n. B y a ll a c c ounts , h ow e ve r, Mr s. Fe smire maintained a

strong relationship wit h the Kemps both bef ore and during the time that they
car ed for her, a nd she re mained a strong -willed woman until her de ath on August 17, 2000.

Anal y sis

On pla int if

fs ’ pr e vio us a

pp e a l, thi s Court he ld that the re wa s a c on fi de ntial r e latio ns hip betwee n the Kemps and Mr s. Fe smire. Parish v. Kemp , 179 S.W .3d 524, 531 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). Th is C ourt

art ic ulate d th a t th e pr e se nc e of a c on fi de nti a l r e latio ns hip sh if te d the burd e n o f p ro of

to the Kemps to demonstrate that Mrs. F esmire’ s financia l transac tions w er e fa i r b y clea r and convincingevidenc e. Id. This Court quoted that it was “mindful that ‘the pre sumpti o n o f undue influence exten d s to all dealing s betwee n persons in fiducia ry and conf

idential relations, and embra ces g ifts, contrac ts, sales, rele ases, mortg ag es and othe r transa ctions by which the dominant party obtains a bene fit from the other pa rty .’” Id. (quoting Gordon v. Thor nton, 584 S.W .2d 655, 658 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979)). At trial, the burden was, therefor e, on the Kemps to demonstrate the fairne ss of both the testate c onvey ance s and the inte r v iv os g if ts t o th e m. Plaintiffs’ main argument is two-fold. First Plaintiffs a ssert that the Kemps c an only prove the fa irness of the t ransa ction with evidence of indepe ndent advice . Second, Plaintiffs argue that the Kemps off

ere d insufficient proof to e stablish the fairne ss of the transac tion. A pr esumption of undue inf lue nc e c an g e ne ra lly

be ov e rc ome by

c le ar a nd c on vin c ing e vid e nc e that the tr ans a c tio n wa s f a ir and not pr ocure d throug h undue influenc e. Matlock v . Simpson , 902 S.W .2d 384, 386 (Tenn. 1995)

. Th e Te nn e sse e Sup re me Court ha s expla ine d, ho we ve r, that in so me c ir c ums tanc e s w he re it w ou ld otherwise be difficult to show the fairne ss of the transac tion a plaintiff can only reb u t t he presumption with evidence of indepe ndent advice

. Richmond v . Christ ian , 555 S.W .2d 105, 108–09-6-

(Tenn. 1977) . Our fir st inquiry , there fore , is whether the o n l y wa y fo r t h e Ke mps to rebut the presumption of undue influe nce was t o prove that Mrs. Fe smire had rec eived independent advic e.

I n Richmond v . Christ ian , the Tenne ssee Supreme Court articulated t hat independe nt advice is n e c e ssa ry to ov e rc ome the pr e sumpt ion of un du e inf lue nc e wh e re c ir c ums tanc e s are su c h th a t it would be diffic ult to show the fairne ss of the transa ction without proof of indepe ndent advice

. Id. at 108. Such circumstances particular ly arise where a fe eble donor impoverishes her self by

the g ift
or the convey

ance seems unnatura l g iven the cir cumstance s. Id. This Court, in Fell v. Rambo , h e ld that evidenc e of independe nt advice was not require d to rebut the presumption of undue influe nce so long as t he donor did not impoverish her self. Fell v. Rambo , 36 S.W .3d 837 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). Althoug h Mrs. Fe smire g ave the Kemps j oint owner ship of hundreds of t housands of doll ars in CDs, Mrs. Fesmire was not impoverished by the transact i o n ; s he still had other ac counts and assets that re mained solely in her name, and unlike the donors in Richmond and Fe ll wh o c omp le te ly g ave a way their prope rty , Mrs. Fe smire still h ad ac ce s s and owne rship rig hts over the money that
rema ined i n the joint CD accounts. We find, there fore , that the circ umstances in this case do not require the Kemps to overc ome the pre sumption of undue influence solely with proof that ther e wa s independe nt advice.

Our sec ond inquiry i s wh et h er the trial court pr operly found that there was c lear and convincingevidenc e suff

icient to overc ome the pre sumption of undue influence as to Mrs. Fe smire’s 1997 will, her 1999 will, and her inter vivos tr ans fe rs . Apa rt y tr yingto r e but th e pr e sumpt ion mus t
es t ab l i s h b y

cl ea r a n d co n v i n ci n g ev i d en ce t h at t h e t ra n s ac t i o nwa s fa i r a n d n o tp ro cu r e d

t h ro u gh undue influenc e. Matlock v . Simpson , 902 S.W .2d 384, 386 (Tenn. 1995)

. Court s sh ou ld e xer c ise the utm os t c are and c a uti on be fo re c on c lud ing that th e so le mn a c t of a de c e de nt, su c h as e xec uti on of a de e d o r w ill , s ho uld

be inv a lid a te d; b ut i t is equally important that t h ey b e vigilant to preve nt imposi tion upon those who are
we a k, fr a il, and

vu lne ra ble to the inf

lue nc e and imp or

tun iti e s of oth e rs wh o e xer c ise a dominant position over them.

Richmond v . Christ ian , 555 S.W .2d 105, 109 (Tenn. 1977) . Gene rally the streng th of rebutting the presumption varie s with the circ umstances of eac h case and the stre ng th of the pre sumption of undue influence

. Id. at 108. This Court rec og nizes that suspi cious circ umstances of undue influenc e ofte n include: (1) the exis tence of a c onfidential re lationship between the testator and the benef iciary ; (2) the testator’ s phy sical or mental deter ioration; (3) the benef iciary ’s active involvement in procuring the will, (4) secr ecy conce rning the will’s e x istence; (5) the testator’s advanc ed ag e; (6) the lack of independe nt advice in pr epar ing the will; (7) the t estator’ s illi tera cy or blindness; (8) the unjust or unnatu ra l n at u re of

the will’s terms; (9) the te stator beingin an emotionally distraug ht state; (10) dis c re pa nc ie s b e tw een the wi ll a

nd the te stator ’s e xpre sse d inte nti on s; a nd (1 1) fr a ud or dure ss direc ted towar d the testator. Kelley v . Johns , 96 S.W .3d 189, 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). Where, ho we ve r, an a

uto matic pr e sumpt ion

of un du e inf lue nc e e xists du e to a

c on fi de nti a l r e latio ns hip , th is Court has often c onsidered a lack of suspicious circumstanc es as e vidence to rebut a n automatic leg al presumption of undue influe nce. See, e .g., Simmons v. Foster , 622 S.W .2d 838, 841 (Tenn Ct. App.-7-

1981) (the e vidence that dece dent was capa ble and strong -willed overc ame presumption of undue influence ). This Court has recog nized that courts shoul d ref rain from presc ribing the re quisite ty pe or number of suspicious c ircumstance s that may invalidate a will; the issue should be decided, r ather , on “‘the application of sound principles and g ood sense to the fa cts of ea ch ca se.’” Kelley96 S.W .3d at 1 9 5 (q u o t i n g Chi ldr ess v . Cu rri e , 74 S.W .3d 324, 329 (Tenn. 2002) ). The pre sumption of undue influence , in this case, ar ises from Mr. a nd Mrs. Kemp’s position as Mrs. Fe smire’s attorney s-in-fa ct. After revie wing the voluminous recor d, we f ind, however , that the Kemps have successfully rebutted that presumption of undue influe nce. D espite the testator ’s advanc ed ag e, the Ke mps have pre sented stron g ev i d ence that Mrs. Fe smire had a headstrong pe rs on a lity , s he re c e ive d in de pe nd e nt a dv ic e e xpla ini ng the e ff e c ts o f h e r c on ve y anc e s, and the wi ll terms and g ifts seem just and natura l. We find, theref ore, c onsideringthe circ umstances a s a whole, that the trial cour

t properly found that the Ke mps rebutted the pr esumption of undue influenc e.
A. T esta tor ’s Me nta l Sta te
The trial c ourt found as a matter of f

act that Mrs

. Fe s m i re was “ headstrongin both her opinions and her a ctions,” and the rec ord on appe al strong ly supports this finding. Witnesses that knew the Fe smires explained that Mr

. Fe smire had spoiled Mrs. Fe smire duringtheir marr iag e, that Mrs. Fe smire was te mperamental when she did not ge t what she wa nted, and that y o u co uld not make he r do any

thing unless it was he r own idea . Mrs. Fe smire’s pastor in Atwood, Stephe n Mark Ea r h e art ( “ M r

. E ar

h e art ” ) , t e s t i f

i e d t h a t h e s aw M r s

. F e s m i r e o f t e n a f t e r s h e m o v e d

to N a sh vil le beca use Mr. Ke mp would bring Mrs. Fe smire back to visit a couple of times a month; Mr. Earhe art state d th a t Mr s. Fesm ir e had ve ry str on g op ini on s, that he tho ug ht M rs . F e smi re wo uld have fe lt comforta ble t elling him almost any thing, and that Mrs. Fe smire neve r g ave him any impression that the Kemps we re f

orcingher to do somethingthat she did n ot want to do. Mrs. Kaye Gr eenw ay (“Mr s. Gree nway”), w ho knew Mrs. F esmire f o r o v er 40 y ear s testified that Mrs. Fe smire was “strong -willed” a

nd that it was hard to c hang e her mind. A friend a

nd fellow c hurch- g oer, Wanda Murr ay (“ Mr s. Murr ay ” ), te sti fi e d th a t sh e ha d a lso kn ow n Mr s. F e smi re fo r ov e r 40 y e ars , that Mr s. F e smi re did

no t le t anyon e c ha

ng e her mi nd , a

nd that sh e did

no t no tic e any

c ha ng e in M rs

. Fe smire’s per sonality

afte r she moved to Na shvill e. An o ther of Mr s. Fe smire’s fr iends, Mary Churchwe ll ( “Mrs. Churchwe ll”), testified that Mrs. Fe smire “wa s a nice person as long as she g ot her w ay . She was g oing to have her way one wa y or anothe r.”

Ev e n the Pla int if

fs a dmi tte d that Mr s. F e smi re ha d a ve ry str on g -w ill e d pe rs on a lity . M rs

. Aten testi fied that Mrs. Fe smire was stubborn. Gar y Coleman, Mrs. Aten’s brother and one of the plaintiffs, testified t hat he ag ree d with Mrs. Kemp’s stateme nt that “y ou can’ t make [Mrs. Fesmire ] do any thi ng , b ut you

c an ta lk he r int o it” be c a

us e Mr s. F e smi re wa s so stro ng -w ill e d th a t y ou c ou ld not tell her what to do.

B. Natural Gift

Th e Te nn e sse e Sup re me Court ha s st a te d th a tT h e re a re n o o th e r a lleg a tio n s in th e re c o rd th a t M rs . F e sm ire h a d a n y h e a rin g p ro b le m s. 1

-8- it is not influence that invalidates a convey ance or will but undue influence ; that “(a ) pe rs on ha s a ri g ht by fa ir argume nt or pe rs ua sio n to ind uc e ano the r to make a will (s ig n a de e d) , and even to make it i n h is o wn fa vo r, ” pr ov ide d th e inf

lue nc e is “exerted in a

fair a nd rea sonable manne r, and w ithout fraud or de ception.” Kelley v . Allen , 558 S.W .2d 845, 847 (Tenn. 1977) (quoting Phill ips’ Pritchard on Will s, §§ 130–31). The trial c ourt found that “Mr s. Fe smire’s ac tions did not fall out side what mi g ht be expected of any other pe rson in her c ircumstance s . . . [and] the disposition of her assets we re rea sonable for a person of her status and situation.” The testimony

established that Mrs. Fe smire had be en exceptionally fond of Mr. K emp from
a ve ry e arl y a g e

. Mr s. Gr e e nw ay , M rs . M ur ra y , a nd Mr s. Churc hw e ll, wh o h a ve e a c h k no wn Mr s. F e smi re fo r o ve r 4 0 ye ars , a ll t e sti fi e d th a t Mr s. F e smi re ha d s po ke n o ft e n a bo ut M r. Ke mp throug hout the y ear s but had neve r menti o n ed an y o t her ne phews or nie ces. B illy Kemp, Mr. Kemp’s a nd the plaintiff Sandra

Parish’s brother , testified that J err y had ofte n helped their

mother
and Mr s. F e smi re vis it. Af

te r she mov e d to N a sh vil le , M rs . F e smi re se e me d v e ry ha pp y and tol d Mrs. Gre enwa

y that she “c ouldn’t have ha d children of my own that have been any

nicer to me and any better to me than [t he Kemps.]” Stephen Mark Earhe art, Mrs. Fe smire’s pastor i n Atwood, testified that Mrs. F esmire of ten share d strong opinions but never said a ny thing ba d about the Kemps.

On the oth e r h and , th e Pla int if fs wh o te sti fi e d a dmi tte d th a t the y did no t ha ve a ve ry c los e relationshi p with Mrs. Fe smire at the time of he r death. J immie Kemp testified that he only sent Mrs. Fe smire flowe rs 2-3 times a nd called the Kemp residenc e while Mrs. Fe smire lived there may be 9 times over the course of four y ear s. Nanc y

Petty , J immie Kemp’s sister, testified that she did not see Mr s. Fe smire much af ter she was grown, and only talked to her on the phone until Mrs. Fe smire could not hear

her. Both Mr. a

nd Mrs. Aten testified that they wer e frustrated with Mrs. Fe smire 1 wh e n th e y

liv e d w ithhe r a

nd , th e re fo re , th e y

ha d li mit e d c on ta c t w ithhe r a ft e r s he mov e d o ut.

L ike the trial court, we find that the terms of Mr s. Fe smire’s will seem natural. Althoug h the Ke mps dr ov e Mr s. F e smi re to bot h Mr. Mad dox an d M r. Wes t’ s o ff ic e s, the y did so up on Mr s. Fe smire’s re quest that she wanted to chang e her will. The evidenc e esta blishes that the Kemps loved and car ed for Mrs. Fe smire during the last four y ear s of her life and Mrs. Fe sm i re ca re d fo r and appre ciated the Kemps. The evidenc e also e stablishes that Mrs. Fe smire valued f amily but expressed
conce rn eve n befor e her

husband died a

bout family members that she neve r saw inhe riting a ll of her
mon e y

. Mr s. Churc hw e ll tes tif ie d that she a dv ise d M rs . F e smi re that sh e c ou ld c ha ng e he r w ill if sh e did no t w ant a ll o f h e r f

amil y me mbe rs to inh e ri t fr om he r. Th e be qu e sts in M rs . F e smi re ’s wi ll
re fl e c tt h i s i n t e n t ; M r s

. F e s m i r e g av e t h e m a j o r i t y o f h e r m o n e y t o h e r n e p h e w t h a ts h e w a s mos t fond of and who had car ed the most for her during her lifetime, but, ne verthe les s , gav e s m allerA ft er M r

. W es t dra ft ed M r s

. Fes m i r e’ s 199 9 w i l l , t he K em ps, M r

. M addo x, and M r s

. Fes m i r e r eal i zed t hat 2

t h e d raft act u al l y co n v ey ed m o re m o n ey t h an M rs

. Fesm i re had l eft i n acco u n t s t h at rem ai n ed s o l el y i n he r nam e. I n
o rd e r to fu lfill th e sp e c ific b e q u e sts th a t sh e h a d m a d e to e a c h o f h e r o th e r fa m ily m e m b e rs , M rs . F e sm ire a c tu a lly del et ed $100, 000. 00 be ques t s t hat s he had m ade t o ea ch of t he K em ps i n her 1997 w i l l and t he 1999 dr af t s o t hat t he

o th e r b e n e fic ia rie s w o u ld re c e iv e th e a m o u n ts sh e w a n te d g iv e n in h e r 1 9 9 9 w ill

. T h e sp e c ific 1 9 9 9 w ill b e q u e sts in c lu d e : $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 to B u m a n A rg o ; $ 7 ,5 0 0 .0 0 to Jo h n W ill ia m s, Jr.; $ 7 , 5 0 0

. 0 0 t o D i c k Wi l l i a ms ; $ 1 5 , 0 0 0

. 0 0 t o B i l l y K e mp ; $ 1 5 , 0 0 0

. 0 0 t o S a n d r a P a r i s h ; $ 2 0 , 0 0 0

. 0 0 t o J i mmy K e mp (r e fe rr e d to a t t ria l as Jim m ie K e m p ); $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 to N a n c y K e m p P e tty ; $ 5 ,0 0 0 to E lta F e sm ire ; $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 to D a v id M cCol l um ; $7, 500. 00 t o J eff M cCol l um ; $7, 500. 00 t o L i nda M cCol l um ; $3, 500. 00 t o Phi l l i p M cCol l um ; $15, 000. 00 t o G ar y Col em an; $15, 000. 00 to M ari l y n A t en; $15, 000. 00 t o J ohn Fe s m i r e; $15, 000 t o Sha r on Fe s m i r e Cot t on; $3, 500. 00 t o G l or i a M cC o l l um ; $3, 500. 00 t o D anny M cCol l um ; $3, 000. 00 t o A t w ood Fi r s t M et hodi s t Chur ch; a nd $ 3 ,0 0 0 .0 0 to P isg a h C e m e te ry o f A tw o o d

. -9- be qu e sts to o the r r e lativ e s th a t sh e oc c a sio na lly sa w. We , the re fo re , c on sid e r M rs . F e smi re ’s wi ll 2 conveyance s toge ther with the inter vivos g ifts to be natura l gif ts. C. Independent A dvice

The trial c ourt found that Mrs. F esmire met with re specte d l ocal attorney s and re ceive d ind e pe nd e nt a dv ic e fr om t he m. P la int if

fs argue , h ow e ve r, that th e Ke mps fa ile d to pr ov e that Mr s. Fe smire re ceive d independe nt advice reg ardingthe “a dvisability ” of Mr s. Fe smire’s testame ntary dispositi ons and inter vivos g ifts. We disag ree and find that there was some e vidence of indepe ndent advice

. Plaintiffs rely

o n th e Su p r e me Court’s lang uag e in Richmond v . Christ ian that an indepe ndent party must give a dvice “ respe cting the conse quences an d advisability of the g ift.” Richmond v

. Christ ian , 555 S.W .2d 105, 107 (Tenn. 1977) . I n Richmond , the Tennessee Supreme Court require d dece dent’s son to overc ome a pr esumption of undue influence solely with evidence of indepe ndent advice

. The court found that the son fa iled to met this burden wher e the son wa s seated a cross fr om his mother during her conver sation with a n attorney , wher e the son, not the mother, was t he attorney ’s client, and wher e the attorney admitted that his discussion with t he mother w as cur sory and he only

explained that the deed tr ansfe rre d the entire trac t to her son and deter mined that was the mother’s intent. Id. at 109.

Pla int if f c on te nd s th a t Mr s. F e smi re did no t r e c e ive ind e pe nd e nt a dv ic e in t his c a se be c a

us e neither Mr . West nor Mr. Maddox advised Mrs. Fe smire on what bequests she should make. We do
no t, a s p la int if

f c on te nd s, int e rp re t th a t Richmond require s attorne y s b e i n the business of telling te stator s wha t mon e tary

amou nts the y sh ou ld l e a ve to t

he ir lov e d o ne s in

or de r f or the ir a dv ic e to be considere d independe nt. I n its a naly sis, the Court in Richmond applied the f

ollowing de finition of indepe ndent advice : [p] roper independe nt advice in this co n n ec t i o n means that the donor had the preliminary

benef it of confe rringfully

and privately upon the s ubject of his int ended g ift with a person w ho was not only competent to inform him corr ectly as to its lega l effec t b u twho was f

urthermor e so disassociate d from the inter ests of the done e as-10-

to be in a position t o advise the donor impartially and co n f i den t ly as to the conseque nces to himself of his proposed bene factions

. Id. at 1 0 9 (q u o t i n g Tur

ne r v . Le ath e rs , 232 S.W .2d 269, 271 (1950))

. Applying this interpr etation, we f ind that the trial court pr operly held that Mrs. Fe smire rec eived independe nt advice f or the joint CD a c c ounts and

te sta me nta ry c on ve y anc e s.

Mr s. F e smi re re c e ive d inde pe nd e nt a dv ic e wi th h e r 1 99 9 w ill . H e r atto rn e y , M r. Wes t te sti fi e d th a t he me t w ithMr s. Fesm ir e pr ivate ly . M r. Wes t di sc us se d th e c ha ng e s f ro m Mr s. Fe smi re ’s 1997 wil l in detail. Although Mr. West testified that he had pre viously draf ted ea ch of the Ke mp’ s w ill s, Mr

. Ke mp te sti fi e d that he su g g e ste d that Mr . We st d ra ft the 19 99 wi ll b e c a

us e Mrs. Fe smire’s pre v i o u s att orney , Mr. Maddox, had retire d and Mr. Ke mp was familiar with Mr. West because he had worke d in court as a trooper when Mr. West had been a g ener al sessions judge

. Mr. Kemp a lso testified, howeve r, that he had not se en Mr. West in fiftee n to twenty y ear s befor e Mr . We st dr a ft e d the wi lls . M r. Wes t a lso te sti fi e d th a t he a nd his wi fe we nt t o th e Ke mp’ s h ome so that Mr s. F e smi re c ou ld s ig n the wi ll, and Mr . West we nt ove r the de ta ils of the wi ll w ithMr s. F e smi re in- de pth

on c e mor e . In a dd iti on , n e ith e r o f t he Ke mps wa s pre se nt at the tim e that Mr . We st
e xpla ine d th e c on te nts of

the wi ll t o M rs . F e smi re or wh e n M rs . F e smi re sig ne d th e wi ll.

Mrs. Fe smire also rec eived independe nt a dvice reg arding the CDs that she conve y ed to the Ke mps

. Th e e vid e nc e ind ic a te s that Mr s. F e smi re re c e ive d ind e pe nd e nt a dv ic e fr om t wo se pa rate
source s. Ba

nk tellers testified that they explained to Mrs. Fesmire that addingthe Kemps a s joint
acc ount holders g ave the m unf ettere d acc ess to those ac counts and Mrs. F esmire unde rstood what she wa s doing w hen she a dded the Ke mps as joint owners. Additionally , the evidenc e indicate s that Mr s. F e smi re sp ok e wi th he r a tto rn e y , Mr

. Ma dd ox in No ve mbe r 19 96 a bo ut g if tin g pr ior to d e a th and the tax conseque nces of that ty pe of e state planning

. Although Mrs. Fe smire s et up most of the CDs in the fall of 1996 “pa y able upon death” to the Kemps, Mrs. Fe smire did not make the Kemps joi nt a c c ount ho lde rs un til the fa ll of 19 98 , a ft e r sh e ha d sp ok e n to Mr . M a dd ox. In li g ht o f t he se circ umstances, we ag ree with the trial court that ther e is evidenc e of inde pendent a dvice.

Conclu sion Considering the totality

of the c ircumstance s in the rec ord as a whole, we find that the evidenc e does not pre ponderate ag ains t the trial court’ s finding that the Kemps over came the presumption of undue influence

. The Kemps prese nted evidence of Mrs. Fe smire’s strong -willed persona lity , the natura l nature of Mrs. Fe smire’s g ift, and Mrs. F esmire’ s rec eipt of in d ep en dent
a dv ic e . T og e the r, the tr ia l c ourt fo un d th a t a ll o f t

he tr ans a c tio ns bet ween th e Kem ps and Mr s. Fe smire wer e fa ir and not procured through undue influenc e. We do not disag ree . The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir

med. Costs of this appeal ar e, ther efor e, taxed to the Appellants,-11-

Sandra K ay e Ke mp Parish, Marily n Coleman Aten, Ange la Aten, Ga ry Har lan Coleman, Sr., Gar y H. Coleman, Jr., Vicky

Coleman Bir d, J i m m i e Au stin Kemp, Thomas A. Ke mp, Michael Ke mp, D a v i d A r g o , an d

N an c y P e t t y, an d

t h e i r s u r e t y, f o r w h i c he x e c u t i o nm ay i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ DAVI D R. FARMER , JUDGE