Opinion ID: 1698242
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: was there a confidential relationship between madden and sierra?

Text: This Court stated, in Davion v. Williams , In Croft, and subsequently, the type of confidential relationship for invoking the presumption was broadened to include those of a moral, social, domestic or merely personal nature. .. . Davion v. Williams, 352 So.2d 804, 807 (Miss. 1977) (referring to Croft v. Alder, 237 Miss. 713, 115 So.2d 683 (1959)). Hendricks v. James further explained the concept of a confidential or fiduciary relationship: Whenever 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 relationship as fiduciary in character. Hendricks v. James, 421 So.2d 1031, 1041 (Miss. 1982) (emphasis added). The dependency factor was emphasized again when we stated, [I]n determining whether or not a fiduciary or confidential relationship existed between two persons, we have looked to see if one person depends upon another. In re Will and Estate of Varvaris, 477 So.2d 273, 278 (Miss. 1985). Madden contends the Special Chancellor erred in finding a confidential relationship existed between her and the Sierras. She argues they were merely friends and their friendship did not rise to the level of a confidential relationship. Such argument does not withstand the most cursory inspection of the record before this Court. Mrs. Sierra was completely bedridden and totally dependent upon another for all her needs. Andrew Sierra was the primary care-giver to his wife, and his only escape from that heavy burden of responsibility came in the form of Nancy Madden. Only during Madden's visits  usually from four to six hours several times a week  could Andrew Sierra leave the house. With no children to turn to for help, no other close relatives to call upon, Andrew and Anna Sierra were forced by circumstance to turn to Madden for help. The trust reposed in Madden by the Sierras is evident. The Sierras gave Madden several small gifts; they gave her a key to their house; and they showed her where they kept a hidden cash box. Madden knew what monthly income the Sierras had and when their monthly checks arrived; they told her of their checking account at Hancock Bank; they told her about their savings account and lock box with Farley Rhodes at Southern Federal Bank. Finally, Sierra opened a savings account, rented a lock box, and bought certificates of deposit  all with Nancy Madden as his joint tenant. Added to this is the fact Sierra trusted Madden, not only to come into their home and their lives, but to care for his wife of more than forty years in his absence. Madden herself equated her role as a hospice volunteer to that of any other professional person  therapist, licensed practical nurse, registered nurse, minister, doctor, or lawyer. This Court has for many, many years acknowledged the lawyer/client relationship or doctor/patient relationship as a fiduciary one. See, e.g., Hitt v. Terry, 92 Miss. 671, 46 So. 829 (1908); Ham v. Ham, 146 Miss. 161, 110 So. 583 (1926); Gwin v. Fountain, 159 Miss. 619, 126 So. 18 (1930); Dantone v. Dantone, 205 Miss. 420, 38 So.2d 908 (1949); McMahon v. McMahon, 247 Miss. 822, 157 So.2d 494 (1963). We hold the Special Chancellor did not err in finding a confidential relationship existed between Sierra and Madden.