### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 25, 200 7

LI LLI AN A. CA RPENTER, ET AL 

### . v. MI CHAEL E . SIMS , ET AL 

### .

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Cum berland Coun ty No. CV- 3686 John T urnbu ll, Jud ge

No. E2007-0622-COA- R3-CV- F ILED NOVEMBER 7, 2007

Be nefic i aries under a

will sought to resc ind the sale of a condominium in which they asser ted an inh e ri tanc e int e re st u

po n a lle g a tio ns th at 1) the c on sid e ra tio n p a id b y

the purc ha se rs wa s so inadequate as to shock the conscie nce; 2) the purcha sers exerted undue influence over the seller; and 3) t h e s el l er was menta lly incompetent at the time of the sale. U

pon finding s that the seller w as mentally competent at the time of sale, that the purcha sers did not exert undue influence over he r, and that she ha d rea son to se ll the condominium f or the amount she did, the trial court ruled that the sale of the condominium should not be set aside. Upon our de termination that the evide nce doe s not pr e po nd e rate a g a ins t th e tr ia l c ourt ’s c on c lus ion s, we a ff ir m.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uitCo ur t A ffirm e d; Ca use Rem anded

S HAR ON G. L EE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which H ER SCH EL P. F RAN KS , P .J ., and C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., joined.

Cha rl e s G. T a y lor

I I I , K no xvill e , T e nn e sse e , f

or the a pp e lla nts , L ill ian A . Ca

rp e nte r, Sara

h P. Carp e nte r, Cha

rl e s C. Ca rp e nte r, a nd

Al ma B a in D a vis

.
Ha rr y D. Sa bin e , Cr os sv ill e , T e nn e sse e , f or the a pp e lle e s, Mic ha e l E . Si ms a nd L ind a S. Si ms.

OP IN ION

I. Backg ro und During J une of 1994, Micha el E. Sims and his wife, L inda S

. Sims , residents of O hio, were
vacationing in a r ental house in the F airfie ld Glade subdivision of C ro s s v i l l e, Tenne ssee. The Sims es we re inter ested in purcha sing a home in Fa irfield Glade and obser ved a “ for sa le” sig n in the window of a

condominium unit i n the neig hb o rh o o d

. T h e condominium was owne d by Mary E.2

Hende rson, a 77 y ear

old widow, and it had bee n her r esidenc e since she and he r husband pur chase d it in 1982, although it had been vaca nt f or approximately

one y ear befor e the Simses discovere d that it was for sa le.

Seek ing a dditional information about the condominium, Mrs. Sim s called Ms. He nderson who was r esiding with friends in Knoxvil le at the time. Ms. Hende rson advised Mr s. Sims that the
c on do min ium

wa s n ot i n v e ry

g oo d c on dit ion

a nd that sh e wo uld lik e to se ll it fo r $ 5, 50 0. She tol d Ms. Sims that sh e wo uld

be g la d to sh owthe Sims e s th e c on do min ium , bu t that sh e did no t wa nt t o drive to Crossville alone and asked if they would mind picking her up. The S imses ag ree d to do so,
a nd duri ngthe dr ive to Cr os sv ill e , Ms. He nd e rs on c omm e nte d that the c on do min ium wa s “ in p re tty bad condition,” that “ there wer e a lot of things that neede d to be done,” a nd that “she hated it” and “w as neve r coming back.” She also indicated that she had listed the condominium with a re altor, bu t th a t “ no bo dy

wa s in te re ste d in

it” a nd that sh e wa s “ tir e d o f m a kin g ma int e na nc e fe e pa y me nts ”
on it.
Up on

the ir a rr iva l a t F a ir fi e ld G la de , M s. He nd e rs on un loc ke d th e do or

to t he c on do min ium , and she a nd the Simses went inside. Mr. S ims’s undisputed testimony reg arding the conditi on of the
c on do min ium

wh e n th e y

e nte re d w a s a s f

oll ow s: Q. Desc ribe the c ondo when y ou g ot there, its condition.

A. I t was ver

y bad

. When we opene d the door, the smell just about knocked us ove r. Q. Wha t ki nd

of a sme ll?

A. Mu sty , mold

y , mi lde w s me ll, mixe d w iththat of de c a y inga nim a ls. [Ms . Hende rson] ha d left some De con mouse or r at poison. And the re we re a nu mbe r of lit tle a nim a ls that ha d die d in the a pa rtme nt, the skeletons of the litt l e an imals. I don’t know if they wer e chipmunks or mice or

various sizes. So the smell from those. At some point, the water heate r h ad broken a

nd had floode d the downstairs. She didn’t s ay

. Idon’t have any idea how longthe wate r ran out onto the floor , but the whole downstairs ha d been f looded.

The bottoms of the door ca s ings w ere rotted and showe d water damag e. The car

pet was so dark from mildew y ou could har dly see wh a t c olo r i t w a s. Th e re wa s mold a nd mil de w g ro wi ngup the wa lls fo ur or fi ve fe e t. Well, we subs eq u ently

found out that the bathtub leaked into the liv ingro om. Th e batht

ub up sta ir s leake d dow n into the din ingro om.3 When we first turne d on the light in the dining a rea , Ishould say , the light wa s a ce iling fixture and it t h re w o ff sparks and smoked a nd
ever y thing like that, so we immediately turned it back off. L ike I say there was just mold and mildew ever y wher e.
The c arpe t she said and it looked to be orig inal from whe n they wer e built in t he ea

rly 70’s. Ther e we re stains i n the ce iling whe re appar ently

the roof ha d leake d. And t h e o n e area in the ba ck bedroom, the c eiling w as cr umbling. And that p ar t o f t he ce iling bu tts up a g a ins t th e fi re wa ll. Betw e e n e ve ry oth e r u nit , th e re ’s a stone or a bloc k firew all. And the blocks at the top wher e the c eiling
m et we re ro t t i n g aw ay

o r c ru m b l i n g.
The sinks wer e all, the porce lain was chipping out of them. The sinks
wer e rusted.

. . . [T] he wa t er heate r had br oken and it had f looded all over

and they ha d tur ne d o ff the wate r t o it

to k e e p it fr om, y ou

kn ow , f loo din g a ll over. B ut no attempt had eve r bee n made, a ppare ntly to clean it up, beca use of a ll the mildew and the water damag e that wa s appar ent at the bottom of the baseboa rds and the bottom of the door c asing s and al o n g t h e b o t t o m o f t h e p an el i n g.
Mrs. Sims’s testi mony

corr oborate d that of her

husband:
[W ] h en [ Ms. Hender son] went in, she kicked . . . it was a de ad chipmunk or a mouse or

something out of the way

.

. . . [Mrs. Henderson] had pac ked her stuff in box es. And it was obvious that water

had come up, beca

use they wer e all molded and f

alling apar t. Cardboar d box es wer e just stac ked eve ry wher e. And ther e wa s this black, dirty

mold on every

thing. And the smell was bad a nd there was ho l es i n t h e wall. There wa s . . . I t’s undescr ibable. I mean, I ha d n o in te re st i n it

a t th a t po int

. And [Ms. Henderson] was kind of telling us, “W ell, we don’ t have
a ny wate r, be c a

us e the wate r h e a te r b us te d. An d a ll of thi s is b e c a us e the wate r heater busted. ” She said, “So Ihad them turn off the water .”4 Well, there wa sn’t any

water in there, but y ou could s ee w here the water had come up on the box es and stuff. So I don’t know how long the wate r heate r had been busted or any thing a bout it, but t here was no water . And it was re al dar k.

And I flipped on the light. There was a light switch on the w all. And when I did, just sparks and s moke flew from the ceiling light fixture thing. . . . I

mean it was just

. . . it was rea lly , rea lly bad. You
co u l dn ’t s t ay

i n t h er e v ery

l o n g.

. . . And we went upstairs and there was a big mold spot on the ce iling up there

. And behind the paneling , the actua l bloc k had had so much
wate r c ome in th at it wa s d e te ri or atin g . A nd a g a in, the re wa s ju st stuff stacke d ever

y wher e. The smell was re ally bad.

Both Mr. a

nd Mrs. Sims t estified that they wer e hesitant a

bout pur chasingthe condominium beca use of its condition, but that, a ccor ding to Mr. Sims, “we decide d that we ha d more time than money . And y ou know, we c ould fix the things that were wrongwith it sl o wl y o v er t i m e and not have to wor

ry about the fina

ncing or whatever .” Ac cording ly , afte r some fur ther d i s cu s s ion, the Sims es advised Ms. He nderson that they would acc ept her

offe r of sa le.

An a p p o i n t m e n t w a s m a d e w i t h a t t o r n e y Ji m T h o mp s o n f

o r t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f d oc ume nts prer equisi t e t o cl o s i n g , and two day s later, the Simses drove Ms. Hender son to Mr. Thompson’s of fi c e wh e re his sta ff

pr e pa re d a deed and c on tr a c t f

or sa le of the c on do min ium

a nd a g re e d to conduct a title searc h on behalf

of the Simses. Four da

y s therea fter, on c ompletion of the title searc h, Ms. Hender son and the Simses returne d to Mr. Thomps o n ’s o ffice , and the sa le was c losed. After war ds, the Simses drove Ms. He nderson to her bank whe re she purcha sed a c ertificate of deposit with the sale proc eeds.

I n November

of 1994, a complaint was filed in the Cumberland County Chance ry

Court by L y n T . H a rt a s ne xt f

ri e nd of Ms. He nd e rs on to re sc ind the c on tr a c t fo r sa le of the c on do min ium to the Sims es; howeve r, this a ction was voluntarily dismiss ed without prejudice by order enter ed May 5, 2000. On J une 13, 2002, and subsequent to the death of Ms. H ender son on November 17, 1996, suit to rescind the contra ct was f iled in the Cumberland C ounty Circuit Court by Ms. Hender son’s sister, Hele n Goans, a s Ms. Hender son’s sole heir. A mong other things, this c omplaint a lleg ed that following the death of her husba nd, Ms. Hender son “mai n t ai n ed the condominium i n excellent condition and in June of 1994, it ha d a fair marke t va lue of betwe en $40,000.00 and $50,000.00.” The c omplaint further a lleg ed that Ms. Hende rson “lac ked suff icient mental ca

pacity ” to execute the documents conve y ing the condominium to the Si mses beca use she wa s suffer ing f

rom adva nced Alzheimer’s disease at the time and that the Simses “we re a war e of Ms. He nderson’ s mental incapa city

and used undue influence to induce her to sig n the documents.” Finally , the complaint
a lle g e d th a t “ the $5 ,5 00 .0 0 c on sid e ratio n p a id b y [the Sims e s] to Ms. He nd e rso n repr ese nts on lyCha rle s Ca rpe nte r a tte st ed tha t t

hes e f our i ndiv idua ls are be nef

ic ia rie s under H el en G oans ’s w ill and the re by a ss er t 1 cl ai ms t o an y in t er es tM s. Go i n s mi gh th av e h ad i n t h e c o n d o min i u m.
5 a pp ro xim a t e l y o n e t e n t h t h e f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e c o n d o m i n i u m ” a n d “ [s ]u c h a n a m o u nt i s so g rossly inadequate and unc onscionable that it makes the contra ct and de ed void ab ini tio .”

Be fore the ca se wa s tried, Ms. Goans died, a nd by order of the court enter ed August 2, 2006, Charles C

. C ar p en t er, A lma Ba in Davis, L ilian A. Carpente r, and Sar ah P. Carpente r wer e 1 substitut ed as pa

rties plaintiff.

The c ase c ame on f

or non-jury

trial on Fe bruar

y 6, 2007, afte r which, on F ebrua ry 22, 2007, the trial cour

t entere d its final order in favor of the Simses upon its finding that Ms. Hende rson was competent when she sold the condominium a nd understood what she was doing, and that s h e had her r easons f

or selling the condominium for $5,500. This appe al followed.

II. Iss ue
The sole issue we addre ss is whether the t rial court err ed in fa iling to re scind the sale of the condominium to the Si mses beca use of a preponde ranc e of e vidence showing 1) that the consideration paid by the S imses was so inadequate as to shock t he conscience , 2) that the Simses exerted undue influence over Ms. Hende rson, or 3) t hat M s. Hende rson was me ntally incompetent at the time of sale

.
III . Ana ly sis

A. St andard of Review

Th is is a no n-

jur y c a se a nd , a c c or din g ly , o ur re vie w i s de novo upon the record of the trial court without any

presumption of cor

rec tness attachingto t h e t ri al cour t’s conclusions of law

. Cam pbell v. Florida St

eel Corp.
, 9 1 9 S. W. 2 d 2 6 , 3 5 ( T e n n

. 1 9 9 6 ) a n d T e n n

. R. A p p

. P. 1 3 ( d )

. We must, however, pr esume the tria l cour t ’s fa ctual finding s to be corr ect a bsent evidenc e preponde rating to the contra ry

. Union C

arbide Corp. v. Huddleston , 854 S.W .2d 87, 9 1 (Tenn. 1993). “O n an is sue which hinge s on the credibility of wit nesses, the trial court will not be re verse d unless there is found in th e re co rd cl ear , concr ete, a nd convincing evidenc e other than the ora l testimony of witnesses whic h contra dict the trial cour t’s finding s.” Ga lbre ath v . Ha rri s , 811 S.W .2d 8 8 , 9 1 (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 0 )( ci t i n g Te nne sse e V all e y Kao lin C or p. v . P e rry , 526 S.W .2d 488, 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974))

. B. Adequacy of Consideration
First, the a

ppellants argue that the c onvey ance of t he condominium should be set aside upon the ground that the c onsideration paid by the Simses was g rossly inadequate. I n support, the appellants a ssert that it is cl ea r fr o m the re cord that the condominium was worth many times the6

$5 ,5 00 pai d by

the Sims e s, re fe re nc inge vid e nc e that 1) the c on do min ium wa s p ur c ha se d b y

Ms. Hende rson and her husband in 1982 for $38,000; 2) the y ear befor e the sa le, the condominium was appra ised fo r tax purposes at $36,500; 3) the par ties stipulated that, in 1994, condominiums at Fa irfield Glade had a fa ir marke t value of be tween $20,000 to $42,500; and 4) fiftee n y ear s befor e t h e s a l e , M r s

. S i m s p a i d

$ 6 , 0 0 0 f o r a n u n i mp r o v e d

l o ta tF a i r f

i e l d G l a d e

. A s s u

p p o rt i n g a

u t h o r i t y, the appe llants cite S

t e p h e n s v . O zb o urne , 64 S.W . 902 (Tenn. 1901) wher ein the Te nnessee Supreme C o u rt n o t ed that eve n in the absenc e of othe r circ umstances, avoidance of a c ontrac t by
resc ission will be wa

rra nted “whe n the inadequa cy of price is so gr oss that it shocks the conscienc e.” Th e a pp e lla nts c on te nd that the e vid e nc e pr e po nd e rate s to the c on c lus ion that the c on sid e ratio n p a id by the Simses was so inadequate as to shoc k the conscie nce and compe ls rescission. We disag ree

.
I n order to car ry their burden of proof that the consideration paid for the condominium was g ro ssl y ina de qu a te , th e a

pp e lla nts we re ne c e ssa

ri ly ob li ged to e sta

bli shthe c on do min ium ’s fa ir
mark e t va lue a t th e tim e of sa le . T he y

did no t do so

. As to t

he a pp e lla nts ’ atte mpt

to e sta bli shfa ir
mark e t va lue by int

ro du c ing the pr op e rt

y ’s ta x ap pr a isa l va lue , in Te nn e sse e a nd

e lse wh e re “ [i]t is the over whelmingweig ht of authority that assessed va lue is not competent direc t evidenc e of va lue for pur poses other tha

n taxation.” C.C . Marve l, Annotation, Va lua tio n F or Tax ati on Pu rp os es to Show Value for Other Purposes, 39 A. L .R. 2d 20 9 ( 19 55 ); se e als o Kn ox vil le Comm unity Dev elopm ent Corp. v. Bail ey , No. E2004-10659-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 1457750, (Tenn. Ct. App. W.S. , f ile d F e b. 18 , 2 00 5) ; Union Jo int Sto c k La nd Bank of Lo uisv ill ev . Kno x Co unty , e t al

. , 97 S.W .2d 8 4 2 (T en n

. Ct. App. 1936). Fur thermore , we have cited the Sims es’ unc ontradicte d testimony reg ardingthe deplora

ble condition of the condominium at the time of sale , and it stands to rea son that any

evidenc e of f

air mar ket value that disreg arde d the deter ioration the condominium
su ff e re d d ur ingthe y e a r p re c e din g the sa le wo uld no t ha ve be e n c omp e te nt t o e sta bli shthe fa ir marke t value of the condominium at t h e t ime of sale. T he appe llants introduced absolutely no evidenc e as to the fair market value of t he condominium based upon its condition at the time of sale

. I n its memorandum opinion, the trial court cor rec tl y noted that neither

the stipulation that other condominiums in t he neig hborhood were selling for be tween $20,000 a nd $42,000 nor the tax appra isal of $36,500 wer e base d upon “the indivi dual attribut es of this particula r apa rtment.” As the trial court querie d “[H]ow in the world can y ou tell w hat something is w orth if y ou don’t g o inside of it? ” F urther, e ven if it wer e conc eded that the considera tion $5,500 paid by

the S i mses was ina de qu a te , a

bs e nt p ro of

that it wa s gr os sly inadequate, t he convey ance must stand undist urbed. A s we r ece ntly

restate d in In re Es t

a te o f Reynolds , N o

. W2 0 0 6

- 0 1 0 7 6

- CO A

- R3

- CV , 2 0 0 7 WL 2597623, at *14 (Te nn. Ct. App. W .S., filed Sept. 11, 2007):

[ W ] h er e t h e p ar t i es co n t ra ct wi t h kn o wl ed ge o f w h at t h ey ar e d o i n g, ina de qu a c y

of c on sid e ratio n is no g ro un d f or a vo idi nga

c on tr a c t. F a r r e l l v . T h ird N a t ’ l Bank , 2 0 Tenn. App. 540, 101 S.W.2d 158, 163 (1936). Courts a

re not at liber

ty to annul or cha

ng e or a mend a contra ct enter ed into by

parties c apable of contra cting simply up on the g round that the judg es may be of the op i n i o n that a better ag ree ment woul d or should have be en ar rived at. Matth ews v. Ma tthe ws , 24 Tenn. App. 580, 148 S.W.2d 3, 13 (1940).7

The re cord indicates t hat M s. Hende rson was intent on selling the condominium as soon as possible and had pr iced it to acc omplish t hat g oal. Attorne y J i m T h o m p son’s employ ees, Jean Br own and Pam De armon, both questioned Ms. He nderson a bout the sales pric e of $5,500 a nd testified that Ms. Hende rson told them that her husband was dead and that she was tired of pa y ing dues on the condomini um and she “just wanted rid of i t.” Mr. Sims also testi fied that Ms. He nderson tol d h im that e ve n th ou g h sh e ha d no t be e n liv ing in the c on do min ium fo r a y e a r, “ sh e c on tin

ue d to pay the maintenanc e fe es an d the elec tric, thing s like this, the insurance, pr operty taxes. And she
was on a fix ed income a

nd she j u s t wa n t ed t o b e out from under the burde n of all these e x tra expenses. They

came to about t h re e hundred dollars a month.” Mr s. Sim s simil arly testified that Ms. Hender son told her that “[s] he wa s tired o f making pay ments on something she was ne ver c omi ng ba c k to. An d she tol d me, sh e sa id, ‘T his pla c e is j us t r ott ingdo wn .’ She sa id, ‘It ju st g e ts
worse a nd worse a

nd worse.’ ”

We a re c omp e lle d to c on c lud e that th e re wa s a fa ilure of pr oo f t hat th e con sid e ra

tio n p a id by the Simses was so g ross l y inadequate as to shock the c onscienc e, and w e find no mer it in the
a p p e l l a n t s ’ a r g u m e n tt o t h e c o n t r a r y.
C. Undu e Influence Next, the appellants argue that the c onvey ance of the c o n d ominium s hould be re scinded upon the g round that the Simses exerted undue influe nce ove r Ms. Hende rson.
“The doctrine of

undue influenc e applies w hen one par ty , such as a

g rante e, is in a position to e xe r c is e u n d

u e in f lu e n c e o v e r th e mi n d a n d th e w il l o f a n o th e r , s u c h a s a g r a n to r , d u e to the exis tence of a co n fi dential re lationship.” Bro wn v . W e ik , 725 S.W .2d 938, 945 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). As we note d in Reynolds su pr a , “the courts have ne ver c lear ly define d what a c onfidential relationship is. I n g ener al terms, it is any relationship which g ives one pa rty dominion or influence over the other.” Id. at 269 (c itations omi tted). I n Kelly v. Allen
, 558 S.W .2d 845 (Tenn. 1977) , the Tenne ssee Supre me Court further stated that bef

ore a convey ance will be set aside upon g rounds of undue influenc e,

there must be a showing that there wer e pre sent the ele ments of do min ion a nd c on tr ol by the str on g e r ov e r the we a ke r, or the re mus t be a showing of senility or phy sical and mental deter iorati o n o f t he do no r o r t hat f ra ud or dure ss wa s invo lve d, or oth e r c on dit ion s which would tend to establis h that the free agenc y of the donor was de str oy e d a nd

thewill of t he do ne e was su bs tit ute d th e re for

. Id. at 848 (e mphasis added) . “[T] he question to be a nswere d is not w h et her the weaker pa rty ’s de c isi on wa s a g oo d o ne , or e ve n wh e the r he kn e w wh a t he wa s do ing a t th e tim e . In th e se c a se s, the cour ts must determine whethe r the we aker party ’s decision was a fr ee a nd independe nt one or whether it was induced by

the dominant party .” Willi am son v. U p church , 768 S.W .2d 265, 2708

(Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

The a ppellants contend that in order to exert influe n ce o v er Ms. Hender son, the Simses intentionally

established a c onfidential re lations h ip w it h M s

. H e n d erson by

various mea

ns, including the fo llo wi ng :
On t h e f

i r s t o c c a s i o n w h e n t h e y m e t h e r , M r

. S i m s tol d M s. Hende rson that he ha d once been a deputy sheriff in order to g ain her tr us t. L ate r, whi le wa iti ngfo r t he c los ingto o c c ur , th e de fe nd a nts tried to preve nt Ms. Hender son from chang ing he r mind reg ardingthe sale by monopoliz ing he r time. Even though the re w as no nee d to see her a g ain prior to c losing, the defe ndants never theless made a

n eff ort t o v i s i t a n d s p e n d t i m e w i t h M s

. H e n d e r s o n p r a c t i c a l l y e v e r y d a y. Duri n g th a t p e r io d , th e y

to o k h e r o u t t o e a t n

u me r o u s ti me s

. They he lpe d h e r m ov e ite ms i nto sto ra g e a nd too k h e r to th e bank and to the g roce ry

store.
The appellants do not, a

nd rea sonably cannot, contend that the sales pr ice of $5,500 was the result of undue influence by the Simses, as the only

evidenc e pre sented re g ardingestablishment of the sale pr ice shows that suc h price was orig inally proposed b y M s. Hende rson upon first being telephoned by

Mrs. Sims, at which time Ms. Hend er s o n had not y et met the Simses and knew nothing a bout them. Rather, i t ap p ea rs that the appe llants arg ue that but for the alleg ed undue influence of the Sims es betwee n the time of their initial meeting with Ms. Hende rson and c losing of the sale s i x d ay s later, Ms. He nderson would have cha ng ed her mind and that she would have eit h e r in c r e a s e d th e a s k in g p r ic e o r d e c id e d n o t to s e ll

. We d o n o t a g r e e th a t the evidenc e preponde rate s to this conclusion.

The re fer ence d actions of the Simses alone do n o t m an d at e the c onclusion that they wer e prompted by

the ulterior motive of preventing Ms. Hender son from cha ng ing he r mind reg ardingthe te rm s of the sa le

. Th e Sims e s pr e se nte d te sti mony that the y did , in fa c t, h a ve oth e r r e a so ns fo r t he ir actions. Mr. Sims attested that when he and his wi fe m et M rs

. He nderson to drive her to the condominium, he showed her his de puty sheriff identification car d “to ease her mind that we wer en’t
so me sta lke rs or

so me thi ng li ke th at th a t w a s g oin g to s pir it h e r a wa y a nd do he r i ll. ” Mr . Si ms further explained the rea son he and his wife subsequently spent additional time with Ms. Henderson
a s f oll ow s:
She was sim ply a lonely littl e old lady . And my

wife is ver

y kind hear ted. And we ll, I tend to be a little bit my self, but not near ly much tho ug h a s sh e . A nd

Ife lt s or ry for her. She did

n’ t ha ve a ny fa mil y a ro un d , a c c o r d i n g t o w h a ts h e s a i d

. S h e s a i d s h e h a d s o me ste pc hil dr e n, bu t sh e ha dn ’t se e n the m in a nu mbe r of y e a rs . Sh e sa id did n’ t g e t alo ng wi th he r sis te r. She sa id she ha d no o the r r e la tiv e s. A n d w e f e lt s o r r y f o r h e r , s o w e w e r e ju s t tr y in g to make he r fe el9 g ood.

T h e re cord a lso shows that some of the Simses’ actions that the a ppellants argue we re calc ulated to sway

Ms. Hender son from chang ing her mi nd reg arding the s ale actually did not occur
un til after

the sa le wa s c los e d. Th is b e lie s th e a pp e lla nts ’ u nd ue inf lue nc e a rgume nt a

nd is consistent with the Sims es’ a ssertion that they wer e simply

motivated by

g ood will. I n this reg ard, we note the following testimony of Mr. Sims upon cross-examination: Q. And in fac t, after you closed the transactions and she signed the deed , y ou actua lly

helped he r take what was left of her furniture and
mov e it o ut a

nd pu t it in a sto ra g e a re a . Ri g ht?

A. Ye s. Th e re wa s q

uit e a bit of it.

. . . Q. After she signed the de ed , then y ou took her to the First National Ba nk in Crossvill e so that she c ould take that fifty -five hundr ed do lla rs a nd buy a c e rt if ic a te of de po sit . Ri g ht?

A. That wa s her de sire, y es, sir.

. . . Q

. H o w lo n g d id

y o uc o n ti n u e to s e e M r s

. H e n d e rson a fter you purchased he r condo ?

A. On e to t

wo we e ks , I

wo uld g ue ss. Q. Di d y ou

c on tin ue to t a ke he r o ut t o e a t a lot ?

A. We did severa l times, y es, sir.

. . . Q. You would ag ree , would y ou not, that during this period she wa s v e r y d e p e n d e n tu

p o n yo ua n d

yo u r f a m i l y?

A. I wouldn’t say

nece ssarily

depende nt. We develope d a fr iendship. N o mo r e s o th a n

a n y f r ie n d w o u ld be depe n d e n t o n a n o th e r

. We helped he r g et ar ound. (Emphasis adde d).10

Ms. Sim s further

testified that she did not become friends with Ms. Henderson “ until after thi s w a s a ll o ve r a

nd do ne wi th. Af

te r t he fi na l pa

pe rs we re sig ne d, that’ s w he n I be c a me c los e to he r

. ” O b v i o u s l y , o n c e t h e d e a l w a s c l o s e d , t h e S i m s e s h a d n o r e a s o n t o e xe rt i n f l u e n c e o v e r M s. He nd e rs on

re g a rd ing

the te rm s of sale . T he a pp e lla nts have pr e se nte d n o e vid e nc e that Ms

. Hende rson’s “f

ree ag ency was destroy ed” and that the will of the Simses “was substituted theref or.” B a se d u po n th e re c or d pre se nte d, we fi nd no me ri t in the a pp e lla nts ’ ar g ume nt t

hat th e sa le sh ou ld have be en re scinded be cause of undue influe nce by the Simses.

D. Mental Incom

petence Finally , the appellants contend that the convey ance of t he condominium should have be en resc inded upon the g round that Ms. Hende rson was me ntally incompetent at the time of the sale.

I t is well-settled in Tennesse e and e lsewher e that a c onveyance is deemed in valid upon satisfac tory proof that the g rantor did not have the mental ca pacity to understand what he or she w as doing at the time of contra ct. “I n order for a deed to be valid, it must be the c onscious, voluntary act of the g rantor a

nd a dee d execut ed wh en the gr antor is mentally unbalanc ed, whe n he has no int e lli g e nt c omp re he ns ion of the a c t be ingpe rf

or me d a nd wh e n h e is incapab le of tr a ns a c tin g is void.” Bro wn v

. W e ik , 7 2 5 S

. W

. 2 d

9 3 8 , 9 4 4 (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. 1 9 8 3 )( ci t i n g Hint on v. Robin son , 364 S.W .2d 97, 100 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1962)). In a later opinion of this C ourt, Rawli ngs v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. C

o. , 78 S.W.3 d 291 (T e nn . Ct. App . 200 1) , we e la bo rate d on this su

bje c t a s f oll ow s:
Com pe te nc y to c on tr a c t does no t re qu ir e a n a bil ity to a c t w ith judgme nt and discre tion. All that is require d is that the contra cting party rea sonably

knew a nd understood the nature , extent, chara cter , and ef fec t of the transa ct i on. Thus, persons will be e x cused f rom the ir c on tr a c tua l ob lig a tio ns on th e grou nd of inc omp e te nc y

on ly when ( 1) t h ey ar e unable to understand in a r easona ble manner

the nature and conse quence s of the transaction or (2) when they are unable to ac t in a rea sonable manne r in relation to the tra nsaction, and the other pa

rty has re as o n to know of their c ondition. R estateme nt (Second) of Contrac ts § 15(1) (1981)

. Al l a du lts a re pr e su me d to be c omp e te nt e no ug h to e nte r i nto contra cts. Acc ording ly , persons seeking to invalidate a contra ct for mental incapa city

have the burden of proving that one or both of the contra cting parties we re mentally incompetent whe n the contra ct was formed. I t is not e noug h to pr ove that a per son was depr essed or had senile d em en tia. To prove me ntal incapa city , the per son with the burd e n o f pro of mu st e sta bli sh , in lig ht o f a ll the surr ound ingfa c ts and cir cumstance s, that the cog nitive impair ment or disease rende red the contra cting party incompetent to eng ag e in the tra nsaction at issue
acc ording to the standards se t forth above

.11

Id. at 297 (c itations omi tted).

The a ppellants maintain that the evide nce pr esente d at trial prove d t h at Ms. Hender son experience d “a steady and prog ressive loss of menta l capa city ” due to the f act that she was suff

ering from Alzheimer’s disea se and ne cessitates the conclusion that on the da y she sig ned the de ed to the condominium, she lacke d the mental capa ci t y t o understand w hat she wa s doing a nd the conseque nces of

her a ction. We disag ree

.
I n s up po rt

of the ir a lle g atio ns that Ms

. He nd e rs on wa s su ff e ri ng fr om A lzhe ime r’ s d ise a se when she convey ed the condominium to the Sims es, the appellants rely on the testimony of James J oseph Kennedy , M.D., a psy chiatrist who first saw Ms. Hende rson i n April and May of 1996 and attested that at that time, he deter mined that she proba bly

had Alzheimer’s disea se or pr imary dementia of

the Alz heimer’ s ty

pe and had suffere d from the disea se for four to five y ear s. Howeve r, up on c ro ss- e xami natio n, Dr

. Ke nn e dy c on c e de d that he ha d n ot e xami ne d M s. He nd e rs on a t th e tim e of the tra nsaction with the Simses and did not know what her cond i t i o n wa s at that time. Dr. Kenne dy also admitted that it is possible that Ms. Hende rson was able to ma nag e her aff

airs in 1994 and indicate d that the rate at which A lzheimer’s prog resse s varies f rom person to pe rson, stating “[e]very body is differe nt” in that reg ard. The appellants a lso aver to a medical r eport pre pare d by Dr

. Ar l en e J

. D o n o w i t z i n e ar l y J an u ary o f 1 9 9 4 wh en M s

. He n d er s o n wa s ad m i t t edt o P ar kri d ge Hospital for pne umonia and note that the r eport de scribes Ms. He nderson a s “slightly demented.” How ever , in d e po sit ion

te sti mony

Ms. Go a ns , w ho wa s w ithMs. He nd e rs on a t th e tim e thi s examination, st ated that Dr . Donowitz said that Ms. Henderson wa s “a little bit hazy ,” but t hat she “didn’t know if it was her temper ature or if ther e wa s a problem.” The a ppellants also submitted
a me di cal report p re pa

re d b y Dr . M a ry e L ois Mc Cr os ke y in S e pte mbe r o f 1 99 4 s ta tin g that Ms

. Hende rson exhibit ed memory lapses and “ lacke d the compre hensive re asoning of other pe rsons her
a g e ” a nd tha t a c on se rv a tor sh ou ld be a pp oin te d to make de c isi on s c on c e rn ing“ he r l on g -t e rm he a lth
car e and pr obably

financ ial car e.” H owe v er , t h i s repor t does not prove Ms. He nderson’ s mental capa city at the ti m e o f co n t ra ct, nor does it show that she did not understand the natur e and conseque nces of

her sa le of the condomini um to the Simses. Moreover , the re port specif ically states that at the time of the r eport, Ms. He nderson wa s able to “f ocus on the pre sent.”

Even if Ms. H ender son suffe red from some deg ree of dementia at the time she sold the condominium to the Si mses, it does not follow from that fa ct alone that she did not have the menta l capa city to e ng ag e in suc h transac tion. As we noted in Rawli ngs , in est a bli sh inginc omp e te nc e to
c on tr a c t, it is not enoug h to show that a per son has senile de mentia, but it must be shown that such person wa s not a

ble to understand the c onsequenc es of his or he r ac tions. Other evidenc e pre sented
a t tr ia l su pp or te d th e tr ia l c ourt ’s det erm in a tio n th a t Ms . H e nd e rs on wa s me nta lly

c omp e te nt t o convey her condominium to the Sims es in J une of 1994. Mr . Sims testified that Ms. Hende rson was

“ a ve ry sh a rp la dy ,” a nd

he no te d th a t w he n h e ob se rv e d h e r w ri tin g a c he c k “ sh e wo uld

imm e diate ly write it down, what the check was for and subtract it out and, y ou know, balanc e her chec kbook rig ht the re .” Ms. S im s test if

ie d th a t Ms . H e nd e rs on

wa s “ a ve ry sma rt la dy ” a nd that no thi ngMs. Hende rson said o r d id raised a ny doubt as to her c ompetence . Attorney J im Thompson’s lega l
secr etar y , Ba rbar a Jena Br own, testified that, in accord with Mr. Thompson’s office policy , she has12

tur ne d p e op le a wa

y wh e n it a pp e a rs that th e y

a re no t c omp e te nt. Ms. B ro wn a tte ste d th a t w he n M s. He nd ers on a nd

the Sims e s c a me to t

he of fi c e , M s. He nd e rs on

ha d b ro ug ht t a x ca

rd s p e rt a ini ngto the c on do min ium , th a t sh e sp ok e wi th Ms. He nd e rs on fo r se ve ra l minu te s a bo ut t he te rm s o f t

he sa le and that in her

opinion, Ms. Hender s o n was competent and that “ it never e ntere d [her] m ind that there was any problem.” Mr. Thom pson’s other employ ee, Pam Dea rmon, also sat down and spoke with Ms. Hende rson and attested that Ms. Hende rson gave her no r eason to que stion her compete nce. Even Ms. Goa

ns testified that on “some da y s [M s. Hende rson] would be mo re with it than other day s” and a dmitted that she could not say whether Ms. H ender son would have be en “w ith it” when she ele cted to continue w ith the sale of he r condominium.
Upon ca ref ul reviewof the e ntire re cord in this case , it is our determination that the evide nce does not preponde rate ag ainst the trial cour t’s decision that Ms. Hende rson was c ompetent when she
so ld h e r c on do min ium

to t he Sims e s.
E. St

and ing

We acknow ledg e the Si mses’ ar g ument that the appe llants did not have standing in this case; howeve r, in light of our

decision her ein, we ne ed not addr ess that issue.

IV . Conclu sion

For th e f o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , th e ju d g me n t o f th e tr ia l c o u rt is a f f ir me d

. Co s ts o f a

p p e a l a re a sse sse d to the a

pp e lla nts , L ill ian A. Car

pe nte r, Sara

h P. Carp e nte r, Cha

rl e s C. Carp e nte r, a nd

Al ma B a in D a vis

.

_________________________________________ SHARON G. L EE, J UDGE