Opinion ID: 1860015
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did a confidential/fiduciary relationship exist between grantham and appellees goodwin and roberts?

Text: In several cases this Court has discussed what factors lower courts must consider in determining whether a confidential relationship exists. For example, in Hendricks v. James, 421 So.2d 1031, 1041 (Miss. 1982), this Court noted that: [w]herever there is a relation between two people in which one person is in a position to exercise a dominant influence upon the other because of the latter's dependency upon the former, arising either from weakness of mind or body, or through trust, the law does not hesitate to characterize such relationships as fiduciary in character. Id. Similarly in Estate of Varvaris, 477 So.2d 273, 278 (Miss. 1985), this Court stated that in determining whether or not a fiduciary or confidential relationship existed between two persons, we look to see if one person depends upon another. The chancellor specifically found that no confidential relationship existed between Grantham and Roberts since [t]he very existence of a power of attorney in all circumstances does not create a confidential relationship. It is true that the existence of a power of attorney is but one factor to consider in determining whether a confidential relationship exists. See Costello v. Hall, 506 So.2d 293, 297 (Miss. 1987). In the instant case, however, it appears that the chancellor failed to give due regard to other relevant factors such as the following: 1. Grantham was uneducated, could not be left alone, and had to be taken care of by others; 2. Grantham depended on and maintained a close relationship with both Goodwin and Roberts; 3. Goodwin provided her transportation and arranged for her medical care; 4. Grantham's finances and business concerns were entirely within Roberts' hands; 5. Roberts and Grantham maintained joint checking accounts and certificates of deposit which contained funds actually belonging solely to Grantham; 6. Grantham's safe deposit box was established jointly with Roberts; 7. Grantham was extremely weak physically and confined to a wheelchair; 8. Given Grantham's advanced age and poor health, it is clear that both Goodwin and Roberts were in a position to exercise a dominant influence over her decisions. Even if, as the chancellor concluded, the power of attorney merely gave Roberts the authority of a glorified check writer, it would be unreasonable to conclude that no confidential relationship existed between Roberts and Grantham given the dominant role Roberts otherwise played in the testatrix's life. We find that a confidential relationship existed between Grantham and both Roberts and Goodwin. The chancellor's opinion is manifestly erroneous to the extent it finds otherwise.