Court Opinion

ID: 9643702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:37:59.741323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:17.394690
License: Public Domain

Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice, dissenting. My only disagreement ice, majority concerns its rejection of appellant’s argument that the chancellor erred when he failed to require that appellee, as the dominant party, prove his acquisition of an interest in certain assets was the result of voluntary acts by appellant. Based upon our case law and the chancellor’s findings in a letter opinion, I must conclude that appellant’s argument has merit. Our court has recognized that when one party in a confidential relationship is dominant and the other party in that relationship has made a transfer of assets to the dominant party, the transfer is presumed invalid, and the dominant party has the burden of proving that the transfer was freely and voluntarily made. Dunn v. Dunn, 255 Ark. 764, 503 S.W.2d 168 (1973); Jamison v. Duncan, 233 Ark. 780, 348 S.W.2d 709 (1961); Norton v. Norton, 227 Ark. 799, 302 S.W.2d 78 (1957); Young v. Barde, 194 Ark. 416, 108 S.W.2d 495 (1937); Gillespie v. Holland, 40 Ark. 28 (1882). We have also recognized that “no greater confidential relationship is known to the law than that which exists between a husband and wife.” Dunn, supra. Over the course of a four-day trial, the chancellor in this case heard the testimony of the witnesses and viewed the documentary evidence. The chancellor’s findings were then set forth in a letter opinion dated December 4, 1997. With regard to whether or not the appellee’s interest in the assets was acquired through fraud, coercion, or undue influence, the chancellor made the following findings: The Court finds the evidence fails as to fraud, duress, or coercion. It is true in this relationship one of the parties appeared dominant and the other servile, but this alone does not prove fraud, coercion and duress. Greater weight could have been given Plaintiff’s argument of fraud, coercion, and duress had the grantor [donor] not been a third party. Notwithstanding the chancellor’s finding that appellee was the dominant party in the relationship, the majority “agrees with the trial court that the first prong of adequately proving dominance was, therefore, never met by appellant in order to then shift the burden to appellee to prove voluntariness.” In order to reach this conclusion, the majority first attempts to minimize the chancellor’s finding by suggesting that no finding is in fact made by the statement that appellee “appeared dominant.” The majority discounts the finding because the chancellor selected the verb “appear” to describe what came to “be clear to the mind: be obvious or evident..: reveal itself to an observer or reader: be manifest.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 103 (1993). The plain and ordinary meaning of the chancellor’s finding belies the majority’s insinuation that no finding was made at all. Next, the majority recognizes that Dunn, supra, and its progeny indicate that the presumption of invalidity is immediately invoked upon a showing of dominance on one party’s part. In spite of that recognition, the majority proceeds to create a two-pronged test for the invocation of the presumption of invalidity. Under this new test, the party claiming duress or coercion must prove more than is required by Dunn, supra. Not only must there be proof that the other party was the dominant party in a confidential relationship. The party claiming duress or coercion must also “establish further sufficient evidence to invoke the presumption, after which the burden to prove otherwise rests with the dominant party.” (Emphasis added.) With regard to this latter requirement, it appears that the party claiming duress or coercion must establish by further sufficient evidence that duress or undue influence was exerted by the dominant party in order to invoke the presumption of coercion. In other words, there must be proof of coercion in order to invoke the presumption of coercion. This two-pronged test created by the majority fails to honor the principle of law enunciated in Dunn, supra. Furthermore, to require proof of coercion in order to invoke a presumption of coercion makes absolutely no sense. In his letter opinion, the chancellor found that appellee’s position as the dominant party in the relationship did not prove fraud, coercion and duress. This finding that appellant had not proven fraud, coercion or duress should convince us that the chancellor erroneously failed to shift the burden of proof to appellee after finding that appellee was the dominant party in the relationship. Pursuant to our holding in Dunn, supra, appellee had the burden of proving that his acquisition of an interest in the trust fund and the lake property was the result of voluntary acts by appellant. The chancellor noted that greater weight could have been given to appellant’s argument had the grantor or donor not been a third party. This may have been true with respect to the lake property deeded by appellant’s mother to appellant and appellee, as husband and wife. However, as noted in the majority opinion, appellant asked her mother to turn the trust fund over to her shortly after the marriage. The details cpncerning the initial transfer in Gulfport, Mississippi, are not clear with regard to whether appellee received his interest in the trust fund from appellant or from a third party, appellant’s mother. Under these circumstances, all transfers to appellee were not necessarily made by a third party. Appellee, as the dominant party in the marriage, would still have the burden of proving that any transfers by appellant were freely and voluntarily made. In Jones v. Jones, 326 Ark. 481, 931 S.W.2d 767 (1996), we held that the chancellor erroneously relieved the noncustodial parent of the legal burden to prove that a material change of circumstances and the best interest of the child warranted modification of the initial custody order. Similarly, in this case the chancellor erroneously failed to shift the burden of proof to appellee after finding appellee to be the dominant party in the relationship. This case should be reversed and remanded in order to allow the chancellor to review the evidence and determine whether appellee has met his burden of proving that the transfer of assets was voluntary. For these reasons, I must respectfully dissent. BROWN, J., joins in this dissent.