WPC 4Vj 0(yw@ 0J 0T3 0^ 0h 0rM 0| 0; 0 1uQ U, 0d UBV % U, U6 B) DC) AMl U* B .v~.v D3 0@ AOA 0D D/K BzU!3|x($ DDDDӀ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd-"C << G<  9p`(Arial d $ !  #d#   $$   YYY FILED$X August19,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.$AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &Xd&#Xd#         \RA'\\RA'\7߂XXdd7L#&";+'h|`  `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION DIANNAFRITTSANDRUTH  )C/ANO.03A019510CV00349WILLIAMS,     )      )BLOUNTLAW PlaintiffsAppellants, )      )HON.W.DALEYOUNG,v.      )JUDGE      )JERRYABBOTTANDLINDAABBOTT,)      ) DefendantsAppellees, )      )AFFIRMEDINRE:EstateofCharles  )ANDWilliams     )REMANDEDGERALDC.RUSSELL,Maryville,forPlaintiffsAppellants.F.D.GIBSON,Maryville,forDefendantsAppellees.@ OPINION @         Franks.J.  PlaintiffsarepersonalrepresentativesoftheestateofCharlesJ.Williams,andbroughtthisactiontosetasideconveyancesWilliamsmadetodefendants.Afteranevidentiaryhearing,theTrialJudge,withoutajury,enteredjudgmentfordefendantsandplaintiffshaveappealed.  Theissue,asraisedonappeal,is whetherunderallofthecircumstances,aconfidentialrelationshipexistedbetweenthedefendants,JerryAbbottandLindaAbbottandCharlesJ.Williams,whichjustifiessettingasidethefivetransfersfromCharlesJ.WilliamstoJerryAbbottandLindaAbbott.   IndisputearetransfersmadebyCharlesWilliamstothedefendantsof72acresofland,alease,thecopyrighttohismemoirs,andagristmill.ThetransferstookplacebetweenJune15,1989andJuly27,1991.Williamsdiedin1992.  TheChancellorfoundthatneitherJerryAbbottnorLindaAbbottexercisedanyundueinfluenceoverCharlesWilliams.HefurtherfoundthatWilliamswasinfullcontrolofhisfacultiesatalltimesrelevantandthathisactionswerehisown.  Thedoctrineofundueinfluenceisapplicablewhenaconfidentialrelationshipisshownwhichplacesonepartyinapositiontoexercisecontroloverthemindandwillofanother.Brightv.Bright,729S.W.2d106(Tenn.App.1986).Therequisiteelementsare:0 0 dominionandcontrolbythestrongerovertheweaker,ortheremustbeashowingofsenilityorphysicalormentaldeteriorationofthedonororthatfraudorduresswasinvolved,orotherconditionswhichwouldtendtoestablishthatthefreeagencyofthedonorwasdestroyedandthewillofthedoneewassubstitutedtherefor.             Kellyv.Allen,558S.W.2d845,848(Tenn.1977).  Thepartyseekingtorescindaconveyancebasedonundueinfluencehastheburdenofproof.Williamsonv.Upchurch,768S.W.2d265(Tenn.App.1988).Theinquiryiswhethertheweakerparty'sdecisionwasafreeandindependentoneorwhetheritwasinducedbythedominantparty.Id.󀀀  AreviewoftheevidencefailstoestablishaconfidentialrelationshiporthattheAppelleesexercisedundueinfluenceoverWilliams.AppellantsofferedtestimonytoshowthatWilliamshadexpressedhisintenttoleavethelandtohischildren,andthatJimAbbotthadtriedtoturnWilliamsagainsthischildren,andthatAbbotthadmadepromisesthatinducedWilliamstogivehimtheproperties(promisestobuildalakeonthepropertyandtorenewthecopyrightonthememoirs).Theyalsoopinedthatnearthetimeperiodinwhichdefendantswasgiventheproperties,Williamssufferedfromhealthproblemsthatmadehimweak,disoriented,andrequiredsomeuseofoxygen.  However,thisevidencedoesnotnecessarilyprovethatWilliamswasdominatedbythewillofAbbott.TherewastestimonyonbehalfofdefendantstoshowthatWilliamsregainedsomestrength.HerescindedthepowerofattorneyhehadgivenhisdaughterwhileinthehospitalandwasabletomanagehisownfinancialmattersandfilehisownincometaxreturnsandMedicareforms.Healsoshowedsomeofhislandtoapotentialbuyer.  TherewasfurtherevidencethatJimAbbotthadbeenaneighborwhohadassistedWilliamswithhouseholdchoresandworkedaroundthepropertyfor30years.AbbottalsoservedasatrustedpersonalfriendwhoassistedWilliamswhenhewassickandwaslistedonWilliamsshospitalformashis nextofkin. WilliamshadexpressedthathewasgivingthelandtoAbbottbecauseAbbottlovedthelandandhischildrendidnot.  Thequestionofwhetheraconfidentialrelationshipexistedisaquestionoffact.Matlockv.Simpson,902S.W.2d384(Tenn.1995).Ourreviewisdenovoupontherecordwithapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefindingsoffactbythetrialcourt.T.R.A.P.13(d).TheTrialJudgefoundthatWilliamswasincontrolofhismentalfacultiesandthattheAbbottsexercisednoundueinfluencetopersuadehimtomaketheconveyances.GiventhetestimonyshowingWilliamscompetentmentalstate,hislongstandingfriendshipwiththeAbbotts,andhismotivationforgivingthemtheland,wecannotsaytheevidencepreponderateagainstthefindingsofthetrialcourt,takingintoaccountthattheTrialCourtsawandobservedthedemeanorofthewitnessesandjudgedtheircredibility.  WeaffirmtheTrialCourtsjudgmentandremandatappellantscost.      ________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.___________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.