Opinion ID: 891577
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: confidential or fiduciary relationship

Text: {19} Citing the evidence that Gregoria had depended on Viola for transportation, meals, and housekeeping, had given Viola a power of attorney and placed Viola's name on her bank accounts, the district court concluded that a confidential or fiduciary relationship existed between the two. We agree with the Court of Appeals that this was supported by sufficient evidence. Chapman, 2008-NMCA-108, ¶ 16, 144 N.M. 709, 191 P.3d 567. In Gersbach, we recognized that our previous test for confidential relationships was potentially too broad because it only required a showing that one person place[d] trust and confidence in the integrity and fidelity of another. 1998-NMSC-013, ¶ 11, 125 N.M. 269, 960 P.2d 811 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, we found a confidential relationship where: The record indicates [decedent] and [proponent] were close friends. The two often spent time together alone and talked on the phone frequently, conversations to which [contestant] was not a party. The record also indicates that [decedent] trusted [proponent]. [Proponent] was permitted to pay a minimal rent on the farm. . . . The trial court found that [decedent] had disclosed to [proponent] the location of substantial amounts of cash . . . and that [decedent] loaned money to [proponent] without setting any particular terms for the repayment of those debts. These facts support the district court's finding that a confidential relationship existed. Id. ¶ 12 (citation omitted). The relationship between Viola and Gregoria certainly rose to this level. Viola admitted that she had a close relationship with Gregoria, seeing her daily, bathing her, buying her groceries, cleaning her house, accompanying her to doctor's appointments, and paying her bills. Viola also admitted that she had a joint checking account with Gregoria and had received a durable power of attorney from her. Particularly after Gregoria's hearing declined following a stroke, testimony indicated that Gregoria used Viola as an intermediary to communicate with others and may simply have allowed Viola to speak for her. Finally, Gregoria allowed Viola to participate in the drafting and execution of her will and the deeds. This level of trust and dependence satisfies even the most stringent definitions of a confidential or fiduciary relationship.