ÿWPCÒ 4# èUNó %A 0cGU<ªw@æ4&: AQIš 0§¢ 0JI 0T“ 0^ç 0hE 0r­ 0| 0†› 0! 1u± 0d& 0@Š D3Ê 0Dý U>A B) DC¨ AMë U*8 Bb Æ 0DE 0D‰ D/Í Bü bÐ{U6Kv~vÓÿ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÜÏ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;cW$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XaBXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman UEUUîÓ€Ó€&§aö"x/1893|x&*+ ,-Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ(W(3а$¤¤Ý ƒcW!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XT_XXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò))))'ÿÿdxd(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd* &Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd XÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òSeptemberÏ5,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ÆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€record€indicates€that€a€temporary€restraining€order€was€issued,€butÏthe€record€is€silent€as€to€any€subsequent€proceedings€for€injunctive€relief€untilÏBarham€filed€a€motion€for€an€injunction€on€December€10,€1993.€€Apparently,Ïthe€motion€was€never€acted€upon.Ì< Œ 9p`(Courier NewPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€|®XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òDOROTHY€R.€W.€BARHAMó ó,€ÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellant,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àShelby€Equity€No.€101702„3ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9608„CH„00200ÌÌò òDIANE€W.€COOPER,€ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellee.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€SHELBY€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€D.€J.€ALISSANDRATOS,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌà@ àClyde€W.€Keenan;€Keenan,€Fox€&€Dabbous€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€AppellantÌÌà@ àCharles€E.€Hodum€and€Mitzie€C.€Johnson€of€ColliervilleÌà@ àFor€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óóóÌÙ€*ÙßR€'/&A1-j|Ëþµ` à. `€€@ÿRßÌà@ àOpinion€filed:ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌÌÌÓÓ›à àThis€case€involves€a€complaint€for€an€accounting€and€injunctive€relief.€ÏPlaintiff,€Dorothy€R.€W.€Barham,€appeals€the€order€of€the€trial€court€affirmingÏthe€report€of€the€Special€Master€in€favor€of€defendant,€Diane€W.€Cooper.Ìà àBarham€and€Cooper€are€sisters,€and€Cooper€controlled€Barhamððs€financesÏpursuant€to€a€general€power€of€attorney€executed€by€Barham.€€On€July€17,€1992,ÏBarham€filed€a€complaint€against€Cooper€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€ShelbyÏCounty€requesting€an€accounting,€the€appointment€of€a€Special€Master,€and€anÏinjunction€preventing€Cooper€from€disposing€of€any€of€Barhamððs€property.€€OnÏJuly€28,€1992,€the€trial€court€issued€a€temporary€retraining€order€againstÍCooper.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€On€October€30,€1992,€Cooper€filed€an€answer€that€denied€theÏmaterial€allegations€of€the€complaint.€Ìà àOn€March€11,€1994,€Barham€filed€an€amended€complaint€adding€theÏallegations€of€undue€influence€and€overreaching.€€The€amended€complaint€allegesÏthat€Cooper€induced€Barham€to€enter€into€a€fraudulent€contract€for€the€sale€ofÏBarhamððs€home.€€The€amended€complaint€further€alleges€that€Cooper€willfullyÏand€maliciously€exercised€control€over€Barhamððs€property€and€converted€theÏproperty€to€her€own€use.€€On€June€6,€1995,€Cooper€once€again€filed€an€answerÏdenying€the€material€allegations.Ìà àOn€March€22,€1995,€a€consent€order€was€entered€appointing€a€SpecialÏMaster.€€The€consent€order€provides€that€the€Special€Master€was€appointed€forÏthe€following€purposes:€€1)€to€conduct€an€accounting€of€the€financialÏtransactions€executed€by€Cooper€on€behalf€of€Barham€under€the€fiduciary€dutiesÏcreated€by€the€power€of€attorney€executed€by€Barham€on€July€11,€1984;€2)€toÏrule€on€the€admissibility€of€certain€transactions€and€expenses€submitted€byÏCooper;€and€3)€to€decide€the€issues€of€whether€Barham€was€the€victim€of€fraud,Ïundue€influence,€or€overreaching.€€Ìà àThe€Special€Master€conducted€evidentiary€hearings€on€June€13€and€14,Ï1995.€On€January€2,€1996,€the€Special€Master€filed€a€report€that€made€detailedÏfindings€of€fact€including€the€following:€€Ìà8 àà8 àà àBarham€suffered€through€an€abusive€marriageÏfor€most€of€her€married€life.€€She€and€her€husbandÏdivorced,€and€in€the€divorce€settlement€BarhamÏreceived€the€marital€home€and€$10,000.00.€€DuringÏher€marriage,€Barham€relied€upon€Cooper€for€help.€ÏAfter€the€divorce,€Barham€began€living€with€her€ex„husband€again.€€On€May€27,€1984,€Barham€shot€andÏkilled€her€ex„husband,€and€she€was€arrested€andÏcharged€with€murder.€€Cooper€hired€and€paid€for€aÏlawyer€and€posted€bond€for€Barham.Ìà8 àà8 àà àOn€June€4,€1984,€Barham€was€released€from€jailÏand€was€admitted€to€the€Memphis€Mental€HealthÏInstitute€(MMHI)€for€psychiatric€evaluation€andÏtreatment.€€€She€was€diagnosed€as€depressed€andÏhaving€a€dependent€personality,€but€she€was€notÏdiagnosed€as€mentally€incompetent.€€CooperÍcontinued€to€help€Barham€while€Barham€was€atÏMMHI.€€On€July€11,€1984,€Barham€executed€a€generalÏpower€of€attorney€appointing€Cooper€as€her€attorney.€ÏThe€primary€reason€for€the€power€of€attorney€was€toÏallow€Cooper€to€rent€Barhamððs€home,€which€remainedÏvacant€while€she€was€at€MMHI,€to€collect€rent,€and€toÏdo€the€necessary€repairs.€€Cooper€did€much€of€theÏwork€herself€and€arranged€for€the€remainder€of€theÏrepairs.€€Barham€did€not€have€any€funds€of€her€ownÏbecause€she€spent€the€divorce€settlement€money.Ìà8 àà8 àà àCooper€opened€a€joint€bank€account€in€bothÏher€name€and€Barhamððs€name€to€deposit€the€rentÏmoney.€€She€used€this€account€to€pay€for€repairs€andÏnecessities€for€Barham.€€This€account€remained€openÏuntil€December€6,€1985,€at€which€time€the€balance€ofÏ$1,084.42€was€transferred€to€a€new,€separate€accountÏin€Cooperððs€name€only.€€In€December€1985,€BarhamÏreceived€two€checks€from€her€ex„husbandððs€lifeÏinsurance€totaling€$10,042.59.€€Cooper€depositedÍthese€checks€into€her€separate€account€andÏreimbursed€herself€for€the€$5,000.00€attorneyððs€feeÏand€the€$500.00€bond.Ìà8 àà8 àà àBarham€was€confined€at€MMHI€until€OctoberÏ14,€1984€and€then€was€released€to€a€half„way€houseÏwhere€she€stayed€until€February€1986.€€On€FebruaryÏ14,€1985,€Barham€pled€guilty€to€voluntaryÏmanslaughter,€but€she€received€a€suspended€sentence.€ÏIn€March€1986,€Barham€was€not€taking€her€medicine,Ïand€she€threatened€suicide.€€Cooper€persuadedÏBarham€to€check€into€Baptist€Memorial€HospitalÏwhere€she€stayed€for€six€weeks.€€Upon€leaving€theÏhospital,€Barham€rented€a€house,€and€she€appeared€toÏbe€much€improved.Ìà8 àà8 àà àOn€July€20,€1986,€Barham€and€Cooper€signed€anÏagreement€that€provided€that€Barham€owed€CooperÏ$29,000.00€and€that€she€would€quit„claim€her€houseÏto€Cooper€for€the€purpose€of€selling€the€house.€ÏCooper€was€entitled€to€the€first€$29,000.00€of€theÍproceeds€of€the€sale,€and€Barham€was€entitled€to€anyÏbalance.€€Barham€signed€the€quit„claim€deed€on€JulyÏ20,€1986.€€Barham€did€not€complain€to€Cooper€aboutÏthe€agreement€and€the€quit„claim€deed€until€shortlyÏbefore€filing€the€complaint€in€this€case€in€July€1992.€Ìà8 àà8 àà àIn€October€1986,€Cooper€received€$36,143.00Ïfrom€the€sale€of€Barhamððs€residence,€and€the€proceedsÏwere€deposited€into€Cooperððs€bank€account.€€In€MarchÏ1987,€Cooper€took€$30,013.06€from€the€proceeds€andÏpurchased€2,282€shares€of€a€Putnam€InvestmentÏMutual€Fund€in€her€own€name.€€It€was€CooperððsÏintention€to€send€Barham€a€monthly€dividend€checkÏas€long€as€Barham€needed€one.€€Between€DecemberÏ1986€and€June€1992€when€this€suit€was€filed,€CooperÏsent€Barham€$11,500.00€from€the€dividends€from€theÏPutnam€fund.€€Although€the€Putnam€fund€currentlyÏhas€the€same€number€of€shares€as€it€did€in€MarchÏ1987,€the€value€of€the€fund€has€dropped€considerablyÏand€is€now€worth€approximately€$17,000.00.Ìà8 àà8 àà àCooper€helped€Barham€obtain€her€socialÏsecurity€benefits,€and€in€the€spring€of€1986,€BarhamÏfinally€began€receiving€social€security€checks.€€CooperÏdeposited€the€initial€lump€sum€check€in€the€amountÏof€$5,372.00€in€her€personal€account.€€In€SeptemberÏ1986,€Cooper€opened€a€personal€account€for€BarhamÏin€Barhamððs€name€only.€€The€account€was€opened€soÏBarham€could€write€her€own€checks,€and€the€accountÏwas€started€from€an€initial€deposit€of€the€August€andÏSeptember€1986€social€security€checks€totalingÏ$672.00.€€After€September€1986,€the€social€securityÏchecks€were€directly€deposited€into€Barhamððs€personalÏaccount.ÌÌà àAfter€examining€the€facts,€the€Special€Master€first€found€that€Barham€hadÏindependent€advice€from€her€mother€and€the€opportunity€for€independentÏadvice€from€her€attorney.€€The€Special€Master€found€that€there€was€noÏmisappropriation€of€funds,€no€breach€of€a€fiduciary€duty,€and€no€undueÏinfluence€or€overreaching€by€Cooper.€€The€Special€Master€found€that€there€wasÍan€oral€agreement€between€Cooper€and€Barham€for€Barham€to€receive€theÏinterest€or€dividend€proceeds€from€the€Putnam€Fund.€€The€Special€MasterÏspecifically€found€that€Cooper€was€not€ð ðshort„changingðð€Barham,€but€instead,Ïthat€the€Putnam€fund€dropped€in€value.€€Finally,€the€Special€Master€found€thatÏCooper€was€the€owner€of€the€corpus€of€the€Putnam€fund,€and€Barham€wasÏentitled€to€interest€or€dividends€from€the€fund.€€The€Special€Master€assessedÏcosts€against€Barham€because€Cooper€was€not€at€fault€and€breached€no€fiduciaryÏduty.Ìà àBarham€filed€exceptions€to€the€Special€Masterððs€report,€and€a€hearing€onÏthe€exceptions€was€held€on€March€20,€1996.€€On€April€17,€1996,€the€trial€courtÏentered€an€order€denying€Barhamððs€exceptions€and€affirming€the€SpecialÏMasterððs€report.€€The€order€recited€the€chancellorððs€concurrence€with€theÏSpecial€Masterððs€findings€of€fact€including€the€findings€that€Cooper€did€notÏbreach€her€fiduciary€duty,€that€Barham€had€the€opportunity€for€independentÏadvice,€and€that€Cooper€did€not€exert€undue€influence.€€The€trial€court€alsoÏconcurred€in€the€Special€Masterððs€accounting.Ìà àBarham€appeals€the€order€of€the€trial€court€affirming€the€findings€of€theÏSpecial€Master€and€presents€the€following€issues€for€review:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1)€whether€the€Special€Master€erred€by€failing€to€findÏthat€the€execution€of€a€power€of€attorney€created€aÍfiduciary€duty€between€Barham€and€Cooper;€Ìà8 àà8 à2)€whether€the€Special€Master€erred€by€failing€toÏrecognize€the€existence€of€a€presumption€of€undueÏinfluence€and€to€shift€the€burden€to€Cooper€once€aÏfiduciary€duty€was€established;€Ìà8 àà8 à3)€whether€the€Special€Master€erred€by€failing€toÏrecognize€that€the€shifted€burden€of€proof€is€raised€toÏthe€level€of€clear€and€convincing€evidence;€Ìà8 àà8 à4)€whether€the€Special€Master€erred€in€finding€thatÏBarham€had€independent€advice€or€opportunity€forÏindependent€advice;€Ìà8 àà8 à5)€whether€the€Special€Master€erred€in€finding€thatÏBarham€was€not€subjected€to€undue€influence€andÏoverreaching;€Ìà8 àà8 à6)€whether€the€Special€Master€erred€in€finding€aÏproper€accounting€on€the€part€of€the€Cooper;€Ìà8 àà8 à7)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allowÏBarham€to€present€additional€evidence,€newlyÏdiscovered€following€the€hearings€before€the€SpecialÏMaster€to€the€court;€and€Ìà8 àà8 à8)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€adopting€theÏfindings€of€the€Special€Master,€which€were€contrary€toÏthe€weight€of€the€evidence.ÌÌÓÓà àConcurrent€findings€by€the€master€and€trial€court€are€conclusive€onÏappeal€unless€(1)€the€issue€should€not€have€been€referred€to€the€master;€€(2)€theÏfindings€are€based€on€an€error€of€law;€€(3)€the€findings€involve€a€question€of€lawÏor€a€mixed€question€of€law€and€fact;€€or€(4)€the€findings€are€not€supported€byÏsubstantial€and€material€evidence.€€òòò òShepherd€v.€Griffinó óóó,€929€S.W.2d€336,€344Ï(Tenn.€App.€1995);€ò òòòsee€alsoóóó ó€T.C.A.€ðð€27„1„113€(1980).Ì€à àBarham€first€argues€that€the€Special€Master€erred€by€failing€to€find€thatÍthe€execution€of€a€power€of€attorney€created€a€confidential€relationship€betweenÏBarham€and€Cooper.€€A€person€authorized€to€act€on€behalf€of€another€by€virtueÏof€an€unrestricted€power€of€attorney€has€a€confidential€relationship€with€theÏperson€who€executed€the€power€of€attorney.€€òòò òMitchell€v.€Smithóóó ó,€779€S.W.2dÏ384,€389€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€In€this€case,€it€is€undisputed€that€BarhamÏexecuted€a€power€of€attorney€in€favor€of€Cooper€and,€therefore,€that€BarhamÏand€Cooper€are€in€a€confidential€relationship.€€However,€the€Special€Master€didÏnot€fail€to€find€that€the€power€of€attorney€created€a€fiduciary€duty.€€Instead,€theÏSpecial€Master€found€that€Cooper€had€not€breached€her€fiduciary€duty,€andÏnecessary€to€this€holding€is€a€finding€that€a€fiduciary€duty€existed€in€the€firstÏplace.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àWe€will€consider€Barhamððs€second€and€third€issues€together.€€BarhamÏargues€that€the€Special€Master€erred€by€failing€to€recognize€the€existence€of€aÏpresumption€of€undue€influence€and€by€failing€to€shift€the€burden€to€the€level€ofÏclear€and€convincing€evidence€to€Cooper.€Ìà àThe€existence€of€a€confidential€relationship,€followed€by€a€transactionÏwherein€the€dominant€party€receives€a€benefit€from€the€other€party,€gives€riseÏto€a€presumption€of€undue€influence€that€may€be€rebutted€only€by€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence€of€the€fairness€of€the€transaction.€€òòò òMatlock€v.€Simpsonóóó ó,€902ÍS.W.2d€384,€386€(Tenn.€1995).€€Cooper€argues€that€a€relationship€betweenÏfamily€members€does€not€always€create€a€confidential€relationship€and€does€notÏalways€give€rise€to€a€presumption€of€undue€influence.€€The€relations€betweenÏfamily€members€and€relatives€are€not,€in€and€of€themselves,€confidentialÏrelationships.€€òòò òMitchelló óóó,€779€S.W.2d€at€389.€€However,€in€this€case,€BarhamÏexecuted€a€power€of€attorney€that€gave€Cooper€full€control€of€Barhamððs€finances.€ÏAs€stated€above,€a€person€authorized€to€act€on€behalf€of€another€by€virtue€of€anÏunrestricted€power€of€attorney€has€a€confidential€relationship€with€a€personÏwho€executed€the€power€of€attorney.€€òòò òId.€ó óóó€Because€the€power€of€attorneyÏexecuted€in€favor€of€Cooper€created€a€confidential€relationship€and€CooperÏreceived€a€benefit€from€the€sale€of€Barhamððs€house,€we€believe€that€aÏpresumption€of€undue€influence€was€present€in€this€case,€and€therefore,€theÏburden€was€on€Cooper€to€prove€the€fairness€of€the€transaction€by€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence.Ìà àBarham€asserts€that€the€Special€Masterððs€report€did€not€take€into€accountÏthe€shifted€burden€of€proof.€€Although€the€Special€Master€did€not€specificallyÏrefer€to€the€standard€of€proof€required€to€overcome€the€presumption€in€theÏmasterððs€report,€we€believe€that€the€Special€Master€properly€considered€theÏshifted€burden.€€In€closing€remarks€before€the€Special€Master,€BarhamððsÍattorneyððs€last€statement€was,€ð ðAnd€once€that€happens€[the€existence€of€aÏconfidential€relationship]€the€burden€shifts€to€the€fiduciary€to€come€forwardÏand€properly€account€for€all€the€funds,€and€we€would€move€the€Court€to€grantÏthe€relief€that€we€have€requested.ðð€€The€Special€Master€responded,€ð ðOkay.€€IÏthank€you€very€much.ðð€€The€Special€Master€found€that€Cooper€overcame€theÏpresumption€of€undue€influence€by€proving€the€nonexistence€of€undue€influence.Ìà àIn€the€order€affirming€the€Special€Masterððs€findings,€the€trial€court€statedÏthat€ð ðthe€Special€Masterððs€report€is€clear€and€follows€the€law.ðð€€The€trial€courtÏalso€stated,€ð ðThe€Court€additionally€finds€that€the€Special€Master€found€by€clearÏand€convincing€evidence€that€the€burden€of€proof€has€been€carried€by€clear€andÏconvincing€proof,€and€that€there€has€been€no€breach€of€fiduciary€duty€by€theÏDefendant,€Diane€W.€Cooper.ðð€€It€appears€that€the€burden€of€proof€wasÏproperly€shifted€to€Cooper€in€this€case.Ìà àBarham€next€argues€that€the€Special€Master€erred€in€finding€that€she€hadÏindependent€advice€from€her€mother€and€the€opportunity€for€independentÏadvice€from€an€attorney.€€One€way€to€prove€the€fairness€of€the€transaction€is€toÏshow€that€the€grantor€had€the€benefit€of€competent,€independent€advice€on€theÏadvisability€of€making€the€gift€or€conveyance.€€òòò òRichmond€v.€Christianó óóó,€555ÏS.W.2d€105,€107„08€(Tenn.€1977).€€This€advice€need€not€be€contemporaneousÍwith€or€immediately€preceding€the€gift€or€conveyance.€€òòò òBrown€v.€Weikó óóó,€725ÏS.W.2d€938,€945€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€In€ò òòòTurner€v.€Leathersó óóó,€191€Tenn.€292,€232ÏS.W.2d€269€(1950),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€discussed€the€content€andÏextent€of€independent€advice€necessary€to€overcome€the€presumption€ofÏinvalidity:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àProper€independent€advice€in€this€connection€meansÏthat€the€donor€had€the€[preliminary]€benefit€ofÏconferring€fully€and€privately€upon€the€subject€of€hisÏintended€gift€with€a€person€who€was€not€onlyÏcompetent€to€inform€him€correctly€as€to€its€legalÏeffect,€but€who€was€furthermore€so€disassociated€fromÏthe€interests€of€the€donee€as€to€be€in€a€position€toÏadvise€with€the€donor€impartially€and€confidently€asÏto€the€consequences€to€himself€of€his€proposedÏbenefactions.€€ÌÌÓÓòòò òId.ó óóó€at€297„98,€232€S.W.2d€at€271€(citations€omitted).€€The€rule€of€independentÏadvice€means€that€the€adviser€must€not€only€be€competent€but€independent.€Ïòòò òId.óóó ó€at€297,€232€S.W.2d€at€271.Ìà àWe€believe€that€the€Special€Masterððs€finding€that€Barham€hadÏindependent€advice€is€not€supported€by€substantial€and€material€evidence.€€òòò òSeeÏShepherdó óóó,€929€S.W.2d€at€344.€€Barham€consulted€with€her€mother€before€quit„claiming€her€house€to€Cooper,€but€Barhamððs€mother€is€also€Cooperððs€mother.€ÏBarham€testified€that€she€wanted€to€sue€her€mother€also,€but€that€her€motherÏdied.€€The€attorney€who€prepared€the€quit„claim€deed€was€the€same€attorneyÍwho€assisted€Barham€in€litigation€to€recover€her€ex„husbandððs€life€insuranceÏproceeds.€€Barham€had€the€opportunity€to€speak€with€the€attorney€concerningÏthe€quit„claim€deed,€but€there€is€no€evidence€that€she€actually€met€with€him.€ÏBarham€did€not€have€independent€advice€on€the€advisability€of€making€theÏconveyance€of€her€house.€€However,€proof€of€independent€advice€is€only€oneÏmeans€of€overcoming€the€presumption,€and€proof€of€independent€advice€is€notÏnecessary€in€all€cases.€€òòò òRichmondóóó ó,€555€S.W.2d€at€107„08;€òòò òGordon€v.€Thorntonó óóó,Ï584€S.W.2d€655,€658€(Tenn.€App.€1979).Ìà à€Barham€next€argues€that€the€Special€Master€erred€in€finding€that€she€wasÏnot€subjected€to€undue€influence,€and€she€asserts€that€the€Special€Master€failedÏto€take€into€account€her€diminished€capacity.€€Cooper,€on€the€other€hand,Ïargues€that€there€was€no€proof€of€diminished€capacity€and€that€Barham€hadÏknowledge€of€all€of€the€transactions.Ìà à€Evidence€of€one€partyððs€deteriorated€mental€or€physical€condition€willÏsubstantiate€the€existence€of€a€confidential€relationship€as€well€as€the€ability€ofÏthe€dominant€party€to€influence€the€weaker€party,€and€the€weaker€party€needÏnot€be€legally€insane.€€òòò òWilliamson€v.€Upchurchó óóó,€768€S.W.2d€265,€270€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1988).€€Any€condition€rendering€the€weaker€party€unable€to€guard€againstÏthe€dominant€partyððs€imposition€or€undue€influence€is€sufficient.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€€TheÍquestion€to€be€answered€is€not€whether€the€weaker€partyððs€decision€was€a€goodÏone,€or€even€whether€the€weaker€party€knew€what€he€or€she€was€doing€at€theÏtime,€but€instead,€the€courts€must€determine€whether€the€weaker€partyððsÏdecision€was€a€free€and€independent€one€or€whether€it€was€induced€by€theÏdominant€party.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.à àà àÌà àThe€Special€Master€found€that€Barham€was€diagnosed€as€depressed€andÏhaving€a€dependent€personality,€but€that€she€was€not€diagnosed€as€mentallyÏincompetent.€€There€is€proof€in€the€record€that€Barham€was€depressed,€but€theÏrecord€does€not€show€that€her€mental€condition€deteriorated.€€She€has€notÏshown€a€condition€that€made€her€unable€to€guard€against€Cooperððs€influence.€ÏWe€believe€that€the€Special€Master€considered€Barhamððs€mental€condition€andÏher€confinement€at€MMHI€in€reaching€his€decision.€€à àÌà àWe€also€believe€that€the€Special€Master€correctly€found€that€Barham€wasÏnot€subjected€to€undue€influence.€Transactions€between€persons€in€aÏconfidential€relationship€are€not€automatically€invalid,€but€the€relationship€ofÏtrust€and€confidence€between€persons€in€a€fiduciary€relationship€commands€theÏclose€attention€of€the€courts€to€the€fairness€of€any€transaction€between€them.€Ïòòò òSecurity€Federal€Sav.€€&€Loan€Assððn€of€Nashville€v.€Riviera€Ltd.ó óóó,€856€S.W.2dÏ709,€714€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€The€law€raises€a€presumption€that€the€transactionÍis€invalid€and€the€evidence€required€to€overcome€the€presumption€isÏdetermined€by€the€circumstances€of€each€case.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€€The€factors€that€areÏimportant€in€determining€whether€a€transaction€is€fair€include:€€(1)€whether€theÏfiduciary€made€a€full€and€frank€disclosure€of€all€relevant€information€within€hisÏpossession;€€(2)€whether€the€consideration€was€adequate;€€and€(3)€whether€theÏprincipal€had€independent€advice€before€completing€the€transaction.€€ò òòòId.óóó óÏ(citations€omitted).Ìà àCooper€testified€that€she€did€not€request€the€agreement€evidencing€theÏ$29,000.00€debt,€nor€did€she€request€the€quit„claim€deed.€€She€testified€that€itÏwas€what€Barham€wanted€to€do€after€discussing€it€with€their€mother€and€thatÏBarham€decided€that€it€should€be€done€to€repay€Cooper€for€her€help.€€InÏaddition,€Cooper€presented€a€letter€from€Barham€that€showed€Barhamððs€loveÏand€gratitude€toward€Cooper.€€The€Special€Master€found€that€the€testimony€wasÏclear€that€Cooper€helped€Barham€in€almost€every€conceivable€way.€€CooperÏhandled€the€rental€and€repairs€of€the€property,€took€Barham€to€the€store€andÏthe€doctor,€and€ð ðdid€just€about€everything€a€person€could€do€for€another.ðð€ÏBecause€evidence€in€the€record€supports€the€concurrent€finding€that€there€wasÏno€undue€influence,€this€Court€cannot€disturb€the€findings€on€appeal.€òòò ò€Shepherdó óóó,Ï929€S.W.2d€at€344.€Ìà àBarham€next€argues€that€the€Special€Master€erred€in€finding€a€properÏaccounting€on€Cooperððs€part.€€Barham€asserts€that€Cooper€failed€or€refused€toÏproduce€all€of€the€documents€in€her€possession€and€that€she€cannot€account€forÏsocial€security€checks€totaling€$6,500.00.€€Cooper€was€unable€to€find€six€monthsÏworth€of€bank€statements,€and€she€testified€that€she€searched€for€them€andÏasked€the€bank€for€copies€of€them.€€Cooper€also€testified€that€she€deposited€theÏsocial€security€checks.€Ìà àWhen€the€resolution€of€the€issues€in€a€case€depends€upon€the€truthfulnessÏof€witnesses,€the€trial€judge€who€has€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€witnesses€inÏtheir€manner€and€demeanor€while€testifying€is€in€a€far€better€position€than€thisÏCourt€to€decide€those€issues.€€òòò òMays€v.€Brighton€Bankó óóó,€832€S.W.2d€347,€351„52Ï(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€The€weight,€faith,€and€credit€to€be€given€to€any€witnessððsÏtestimony€lie€in€the€first€instance€with€the€trier€of€fact,€and€the€credibilityÏaccorded€will€be€given€great€weight€by€the€appellate€court.€€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€352.Ìà àThe€Special€Master€found€that€Cooper€deposited€the€social€securityÏchecks€and€that€the€bank€statements€show€nothing€unusual€or€improper.€€TheÏSpecial€Master€stated,€ð ðIt€is€unfortunate€that€these€1986€bank€statementsÏcannot€be€found;€however,€your€Master€finds€nothing€to€indicate€anyÏwrongdoing€on€the€part€of€Mrs.€Cooper.ðð€€The€trial€court€affirmed€the€findingsÍof€the€Special€Master€and€stated,€ð ðThe€Court€further€finds€that€the€Defendant,ÏDiane€W.€Cooper,€is€an€honest€person€and€credible€and€confirms€the€SpecialÏMasterððs€report€that€a€proper€accounting€was€done.ððÌ€à àWe€are€bound€by€these€concurrent€findings€because€the€findings€areÏsupported€by€substantial€and€material€evidence.€€òòò òShepherdó óóó,€929€S.W.2d€at€344.Ìà àAfter€the€Special€Master€filed€his€report,€the€trial€court€refused€to€allowÏBarham€to€present€additional€witnesses€who€would€testify€about€the€real€estateÏtransfer.€€Barham€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€the€additionalÏevidence.€€The€òòTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedureóó€provide€that€ð ðThe€court€afterÏhearing€may€adopt€the€report€or€may€modify€it€or€may€reject€it€in€whole€or€inÏpart€or€may€receive€further€evidence€or€may€recommit€it€with€instructions.ðð€ÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€53.04(2).€€The€trial€court€is€not€required€to€entertainÏadditional€witnesses,€but€has€the€discretion€to€do€so.€€In€this€case,€the€trialÏcourt€noted€that€the€complaint€was€filed€in€1992€and€that€the€hearing€was€heldÏin€1995,€but€that€the€additional€witnesses€did€not€come€forward€until€1996€toÏrecount€conversations€with€Barham€in€1986,€1987,€and€1988.€€We€find€that€theÏtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€rejecting€the€additional€testimony.Ìà àFinally,€Barham€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€adopting€the€findingsÏof€the€Special€Master€because€she€contends€that€the€findings€are€contrary€to€theÍweight€of€the€evidence.€€This€Court€must€affirm€the€concurrent€findings€of€theÏSpecial€Master€and€the€trial€court€if€there€is€any€material€evidence€to€supportÏthe€trial€courtððs€concurrence.€€òòò òArcher€v.€Archeróóó ó,€907€S.W.2d€412,€415€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1995).€€As€stated€above,€we€find€that€Cooper€has€shown€the€nonexistenceÏof€undue€influence,€which€overcomes€the€presumption,€and€that€the€evidence€inÏthe€records€supports€the€concurrent€findings€of€the€Special€Master€and€the€trialÏcourt.Ìà àAccordingly,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€affirming€the€Special€MasterððsÏreport€is€affirmed.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€such€furtherÏproceedings€as€necessary,€including€provisions€for€payment€of€the€interestÏincome€to€Barham.€Costs€of€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€œappellant.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌ____________________________________ÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌò ò____________________________________ÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó ó›Ì̜Ԁ1ÔÔ€1Ô