VanCleave v. Estate of Fairchild
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01958-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-27-2007 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Undue influence - Confidential relationship - Constructive trust Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): CARLTON, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-27-2005 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Chancery Court Judge: Jerry Mason Disposition: FOUND UNDUE INFLUENCE AS TO THE VAN CLEAVE DEED, AND FOUND NO UNDUE INFLUENCE AS TO THE WHITE DEED AND NO CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AS TO MONEY TRANSFER. Case Number: 03-1058-M |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | TOMMY VAN CLEAVE AND MARIE F. WHITE |
WILLIAM B. JACOB,
JOSEPH A. KIERONSKI, JR.,
DANIEL P. SELF, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | ESTATE OF GRACE FAIRCHILD, DECEASED, PERRY M. FAIRCHILD, EXECUTOR | ROBERT J. BRESNAHAN |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Wills & estates - Undue influence - Confidential relationship - Constructive trust |
| Summary of the Facts: | The estate of Grace Fairchild, represented by executor Perry Fairchild, one of Grace’s sons, contested two warranty deeds to Tommy Van Cleave, Marie’s boyfriend, and Marie White, Grace’s daughter. Van Cleave and Marie counterclaimed for a constructive trust on a $60,000 transfer to Perry. The chancellor held the deed to Van Cleave was void because of Marie’s undue influence. The chancellor held the transfers to Marie and Perry were valid. Van Cleave and Marie appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Van Cleave argues that the chancellor cannot bootstrap Marie’s undue influence on her mother onto Van Cleave’s deed from Grace. A party claiming an inter vivos transfer is void because of undue influence must show by clear and convincing evidence that a confidential relationship existed between the grantor and grantee/beneficiary. Although Van Cleave’s name appears on the deed, there was substantial credible evidence that Marie was the actual beneficiary, if not a co-beneficiary. Marie and Van Cleave testified they consider themselves married, and they consider that they jointly own each other’s property. Van Cleave testified that Marie was the one who negotiated the deal. After Perry found out about the transfer, it was Marie who offered to sell him the property. Therefore, the issue of Marie’s undue influence was relevant to Van Cleave’s deed. Van Cleave also argues that Marie did not exert any undue influence. Factors to be considered in determining the existence of a confidential relationship are whether one person has to be taken care of by others, whether one person maintains a close relationship with another, whether one person is provided transportation and has her medical care provided by another, whether one person maintains joint accounts with another, whether one is physically or mentally weak, whether one is of advanced age or poor health, and whether there exists a power of attorney between the one and another. All witnesses agreed that Marie had a close mother/daughter/friend relationship with Grace. Grace’s transportation to a large extent was provided by Marie. Marie oversaw Grace’s medication and breathing treatments. While they did not have joint accounts, Marie was a signatory on Grace’s account. Several checks were written out of Grace’s account to Marie or Marie’s children. At the time of the deed to Van Cleave, Grace was seventy-seven, physically weak, and in poor health. Grace had given Marie her power of attorney. This evidence raised a rebuttable presumption of undue influence. In order to overcome the presumption, Marie must show that she exhibited good faith in the fiduciary relationship with Grace, Grace acted with knowledge and deliberation when she executed the deed, and Grace exhibited independent consent and action. It was Marie who set up the negotiation between Van Cleave and Grace, who called Van Cleave’s attorney to get the deed drafted, and who set up the appointment to have the deed executed. Grace executed the deed in the presence of Van Cleave’s attorney and Marie. The fee of $49 was paid by Van Cleave’s account. There was evidence that suggested that, like other things, Van Cleave and Marie considered their separate accounts as shared property. The deed was executed secretly. There was substantial credible evidence that Marie acted in bad faith. The evidence was undisputed that Grace had no idea what the Lost Gap property was worth. She considered it basically worthless, when in fact it was worth over seventy thousand dollars. There was evidence that she was unaware that the sale would disinherit Perry out of the property. There was evidence that Marie and her daughter handled Grace’s finances. There was substantial credible evidence that Grace did not act with knowledge and deliberation over the sale. While there is evidence that Grace wanted to sell the property, the whole thing was orchestrated in a twenty-four hour period, without Grace having participated in one step of the planning. There was substantial credible evidence that Grace did not exhibit independent consent and action. Therefore, the chancellor correctly found that Marie exercised undue influence over Grace. Marie argues that the chancellor erred in failing to place a constructive trust on the $60,000 transferred from Grace’s deceased husband to Perry. She maintains the money was given to Perry for the purpose of caring for Grace, while Perry maintains the transfer was a gift. It is the relationship plus the abuse of confidence that authorizes a court of equity to construct a trust for the benefit of the party whose confidence has been abused. The evidence is in conflict on this point. Only Perry and his father were present when the transfer was made. The evidence supports the chancellor’s decision on the constructive trust. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
