ÿWPC… …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° U,% 0dQ U,µ U>á B)DCH AM‹ BØU*õýv~vÓš D3m 0@  AOàÆ/ 0Dõ D/9 Bh˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ “ D” D• – E— [˜ ™ š › Ó€§ yJÚ ÿÿÿÿÿÏÿ3|x§ 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òJuly€2,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€–XXdìdÈ7Ñò ò€›à àà àà àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà àà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóIN€RE:€THE€ESTATE€OF€HOWARDà à)ÌD.€SMITH,€Deceased.à àà àà à)à àœó óGibson€Probate€No.€10572„Pò ò›Ìòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€€€€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àÌSHAUN€MURRAY€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà à)à àÌÙ€€ÙœßL€$'#;+'h|¬V` Å `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,ò òà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€ó óGibson€Equity€No.Ï10700ò òÌvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJENNIE€C.€SMITH,€Individually,à àà à)à àó óAppeal€No.€Ìò òand€JENNIE€Có ó.ò ò€SMITH,€as€Conservatoró óà àò ò)à àó ó02A01„9503„CH„00055ò òÌfor€Howard€D.€Smith€and€WESTERNà à)ÌSURETY€COMPANY,à àà àà à)€ÌMANUFACTURER,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àDefendants/Appellees.à àò òà à)à àÌó óòòÌóóò òÌ€€€ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€GIBSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€TRENTON,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€GEORGE€R.€ELLIS,€CHANCELLORÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendants/Appelleesóó:òòÌóóScott€Kirk€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àTed€M.€Hunderup€€€€ÌJackson,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àHumboldt,€TennesseeÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌò òÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€€J.ÌÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€€J.ÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€–XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñœà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌ›à àThis€case€involves€an€alleged€breach€of€fiduciary€duty€by€the€conservator€of€an€estate.€ÏAfter€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€plaintiff€had€failed€to€prove€a€breach€of€fiduciaryÏduty.€€We€find€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€the€burden€of€proof€and€reverse€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision.Ìà àThe€Plaintiff/Appellant,€Shaun€Murray€(Ms.€Murray),€appeals€the€dismissal€of€her€suit,€inÏwhich€she€sought€to€recover€the€value€of€two€Certificates€of€Deposit€from€Defendant/Appellee,ÏJennie€C.€Smith€(Mrs.€Smith),€individually€and€as€conservator€of€the€estate€of€Howard€D.€SmithÏ(Mr.€Smith).€€Ìà àMr.€and€Mrs.€Smith€were€married€in€1967.€€They€maintained€separate€bank€accountsÏthroughout€the€course€of€their€marriage.€€Ms.€Murray€was€Mr.€Smith's€grandniece.€€€In€1980,€theÏSmiths€went€to€attorney€Harvey€Boswell€and€executed€reciprocal€wills.€€€Mr.€Smith's€will€providedÏthat€at€his€death€one€half€of€his€estate€would€pass€to€Mrs.€Smith€and€one€half€to€Ms.€Murray.€€Mrs.ÏSmithððs€will€provided€that,€upon€her€death,€one€half€of€her€estate€would€pass€to€Mr.€Smith€and€oneÏhalf€would€pass€to€Melvin€L.€Watson,€Mrs.€Smithððs€son€from€a€previous€marriage.Ìà àIn€February€of€1984,€in€an€effort€to€avoid€probate,€Mr.€Smith€set€up€a€separate€checkingÏaccount€under€the€names€of€ð ðHoward€D.€Smith€or€Shaun€Murrayðð€(the€Smith„Murray€Account).€€InÏaddition€to€this€checking€account,€Mr.€Smith€had€Union€Planters€National€Bank€issue€two€CDSÏpayable€to€ð ðHoward€D.€Smith€or€Shawn€(sic)€Ella€Murrayðð€for€the€amounts€of€$20,696.36€andÏ$10,986.98€(CDS).€€€€Ìà àWhen€Mr.€Smith€became€ill€in€1992,€Mrs.€Smith€petitioned€the€Chancery€Court€of€GibsonÏCounty€and€was€appointed€conservator€of€Mr.€Smithððs€estate.€€Subsequently,€Mr.€Smith€wasÏadmitted€to€Ridgewood€Health€Care€Center,€a€nursing€home.€€Mrs.€Smith€then€established€aÏconservatorship€checking€account€(Conservatorship€Account)€by€transferring€$17,000€from€theÏSmith„Murray€Account.€€The€transfer€of€the€proceeds€of€the€Smith„Murray€Account€to€theÏConservatorship€Account€is€not€at€issue€in€this€appeal.€Ìà àIn€January€of€1993,€Mr.€Smith's€health€deteriorated€significantly.€€On€January€29,€1993,Íhe€was€sent€by€ambulance€to€the€City€of€Milan€Hospital€(Hospital).€€The€Hospital€called€theÏSmithððs€housekeeper,€Donna€Simmons,€that€day€to€inform€her€of€the€transfer€and€of€Mr.€Smithððs€Ïserious€condition.€€€Ms.€Simmons€gave€this€information€to€Mrs.€Smith.€€Mrs.€Smith€immediatelyÏinstructed€Ms.€Simmons€to€go€to€the€bank€and€get€the€necessary€paperwork€to€cash€the€CDS.€€Mrs.ÏSmith€completed€the€documents€sent€to€her€by€the€bank,€indicating€in€the€space€provided€that€theÏCDS€were€being€cashed€for€"medical€reasons."€€The€bank€cashed€the€CDS,€and€Mrs.€Smith€placedÏthe€proceeds€from€the€CDS€into€the€Conservatorship€Account€on€January€29,€1993.€€€Mrs.€SmithÏdid€not€seek€court€approval€to€cash€the€CDS€and€place€the€proceeds€in€the€ConservatorshipÏAccount.€€€Five€days€later,€on€February€2,€1993,€Mr.€Smith€died.€€€Ìà àAfter€Mr.€Smithððs€death,€Ms.€Murray€brought€suit€alleging€breach€of€fiduciary€duty€byÏMrs.€Smith€and€seeking€to€recover€the€value€of€the€CDS€from€Mr.€Smith's€estate.€€At€trial,€Mrs.ÏSmith€indicated€that€she€was€eighty„five€years€old€and€testified€that€she€transferred€the€fundsÏbecause€she€was€overwhelmed€by€incoming€medical€bills€and€because€she€was€fearful€that€sheÏwould€not€have€the€resources€to€pay€future€medical€bills.€€The€proof€at€trial€showed€that€theÏexpenses€charged€to€the€conservatorship€totaled€$2,678.23.€€To€support€Mrs.€Smithððs€testimonyÏabout€the€incoming€medical€bills,€two€medical€bills€totaling€$2,123.01€were€offered€into€evidence.€ÏUpon€Mr.€Smithððs€death,€the€Conservatorship€Account€totaled€$49,041.08,€comprised€ofÏapproximately€$14,000€of€the€remaining€proceeds€from€the€Smith„Murray€Account€plus€the€valueÏof€the€two€CDS.€€This€went€to€Mr.€Smithððs€estate€to€pass€under€his€will,€one€half€to€Mrs.€SmithÏand€the€other€half€to€Ms.€Murray.Ìà àAfter€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€found€that€Mrs.€Smith€had€cashed€the€CDS€in€order€toÏproperly€carry€out€her€duties€as€Mr.€Smithððs€conservator.€€In€its€Findings€of€Fact€and€ConclusionsÏof€Law,€the€trial€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà à7.€€As€Plaintiff,€Shaun€Murray€carried€the€burden€of€putting€forth€proof€thatÏDefendantððs€actions€were€outside€the€scope€of€her€authority€and/or€improper.ÌÌà@ à*€*€*€*ÌÌà8 àà à9.€€After€observing€the€witnesses€and€evidence€presented€by€both€PlaintiffÏand€Defendant,€and€upon€reflection€of€the€same,€the€Court€found€that€the€PlaintiffÏhad€failed€to€meet€the€burden€of€proof€required.Ìà àà àÌÓÓThe€trial€court€then€dismissed€Ms.€Murrayððs€claim.Ìà àOn€appeal,€Ms.€Murray€contends€that€the€evidence€at€trial€preponderated€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€that€Mrs.€Smith€properly€fulfilled€her€fiduciary€duty€when€she€redeemed€the€€CDS.€ÏMs.€Murray€maintains€that€the€evidence€shows€Mrs.€Smith€redeemed€the€CDS€so€that€their€valueÏwould€be€captured€in€Mr.€Smithððs€estate€at€the€time€of€his€death,€because€under€Mr.€Smithððs€willÏMrs.€Smith€took€one€half€of€Mr.€Smithððs€œestate.›€€œÌà àOur›€review€of€this€case€is€governed€by€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d),€which€provides€thatÏreview€of€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€shall€be€òòò òde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings,€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÏotherwise.€€ò òòòUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.€Huddlestonóóó ó,ò ò€ó ó854€S.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).€€ÏWhere€the€evidence€is€conflicting,€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€entitled€to€great€weight€on€appealÏbecause€the€trial€judge€had€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€manner€and€demeanor€of€the€witnessesÏwhile€testifying.€€òòò òGalbreath€v.€Harrisó óóó,€811€S.W.2d€88,€91€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€On€an€issueÏwhich€hinges€on€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€we€will€not€reverse€the€trial€court€unless€the€recordÏcontains€clear,€concrete,€and€convincing€evidence€other€than€the€oral€testimony€of€witnesses€whichÏcontradicts€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€On€questions€of€law,€our€review€is€ò òòòde€novoó ó€óóon€theÏrecord€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòMarriott€Employeesðð€Fed.€Credit€Union€v.ÏHarrisóóó ó,ò òòò€ó óóó897€S.W.2d€723,€727€(Tenn.€App.€1994).Ìà àIn€arriving€at€its€decision,€the€trial€court€stated€that€the€burden€of€proof€was€on€the€plaintiff,ÏMs.€Murray,€to€show€that€Mrs.€Smithððs€actions€in€cashing€the€CDS€were€in€breach€of€her€fiduciaryÏduty.€€The€court€found€that€Ms.€Murray€failed€to€carry€her€burden€of€proof.€€This€was€aÏmisallocation€of€the€burden€of€proof.€€In€a€transaction€involving€a€fiduciary€relationship,€aÏpresumption€of€invalidity€attaches€to€the€transaction€once€it€is€shown€that€the€fiduciary€benefittedÏfrom€the€transaction.€€ò òòòLanius€v.€Donnelló óóó,€222€Tenn.€58,€76,€432€S.W.2d€659,€667€(Tenn.Í1968)€(quoting€ò òòòRoberts€v.€Chaseó óóó,€25€Tenn.€App.€636,€650„51,€166€S.W.2d€641,€650„51Ï(1942)).€€In€òòò òLaniusó óóó,€the€Court€stated:€ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓð ðWhile€equity€does€not€deny€the€possibility€of€valid€transactions€between€the€twoÏparties,€yet€because€every€fiduciary€relation€implies€a€condition€of€superiority€heldÏby€one€of€the€parties€over€the€other,€in€every€transaction€between€them€by€which€theÏsuperior€party€obtains€a€possible€benefit,€equity€raises€a€presumption€against€itsÏvalidity;€and€casts€upon€that€party€the€burden€of€proving€affirmatively€itsÏcompliance€with€equitable€requisites,€and€of€thereby€overcoming€the€presumption.ððÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° Òòòò òÌÓÓId.ó ó€óó(quoting€ò òòòRobertsó óóó,€25€Tenn.€App.€at€651,€166€S.W.2d€at€650„51€(quoting€3€òòò òPomeroy'só óÏò òEquity€Jurisprudenceó óóó€790€(5th€ed.€1941))).€€This€presumption€extends€to€all€interactionsÏbetween€persons€in€fiduciary€and€confidential€relationships,€embracing€gifts,€contracts,€sales,Ïreleases,€mortgages,€and€other€transactions€by€which€the€dominant€party€acquires€a€benefit€fromÏthe€other€party.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€(quoting€ò òòòRobertsó óóó,€25€Tenn.€App.€at€651,€166€S.W.2d€at€651).€€€€€€à àÌà àMoreover,€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€34„11„115(c),€a€fiduciary€such€as€Mrs.€Smith€mustÏobtain€court€approval€before€changing€the€nature€of€the€fiduciaryððs€investment.€€Mrs.€Smith€did€notÏseek€court€approval€before€changing€the€nature€of€Mr.€Smithððs€investment,€that€is,€redeeming€theÏCDS€and€transferring€the€proceeds€to€the€Conservatorship€Account.€€The€statutory€requirement€thatÏMrs.€Smith€obtain€court€approval€in€advance€supports€the€conclusion€that€Mrs.€Smith€had€theÏburden€of€establishing€the€validity€of€the€transaction.Ìà àAccordingly,€Ms.€Murray€had€the€initial€burden€of€showing€that€Mrs.€Smith€obtained€aÏbenefit€by€redeeming€the€CDs.€€This€initial€burden€was€met€by€demonstrating€that€the€value€of€theÏredeemed€CDS€in€the€Conservatorship€Account€went€to€Mr.€Smithððs€estate€and€that€Mr.€SmithððsÏwill€devised€one€half€of€his€estate€to€Mrs.€Smith.€€Once€the€benefit€to€the€fiduciary€from€theÏtransaction€had€been€demonstrated,€the€burden€then€shifted€to€the€fiduciary,€Mrs.€Smith,€to€proveÏthe€validity€of€the€transaction.€€Ìà àIn€order€to€carry€her€burden€of€proof,€Mrs.€Smith€would€need€to€show€at€minimum€whatÏshe€would€have€been€required€to€prove€had€she€sought€court€approval€of€the€transactions€inÏadvance,€as€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€34„11„115(c).€€The€statute€does€not€set€forth€theÍevidence€a€fiduciary€is€required€to€produce€in€order€to€obtain€court€approval.€€Consequently,€weÏlook€to€prior€case€law€for€the€standard.€€Ìà àAn€analogous€situation€is€discussed€in€ò òòòFolts€v.€Jonesó óóó,€175€Tenn.€77,€132€S.W.2d€205Ï(1939).€€In€ò òòòFoltsó óóó,€the€guardian€of€an€incompetent€ward€wanted€to€cash€a€life€insurance€policy€forÏthe€benefit€of€his€wardððs€estate,€and€he€sued€the€named€beneficiary€of€the€policy€in€order€toÏascertain€his€legal€rights€in€the€matter.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€79„80,€132€S.W.2d€at€206.€€The€Court€pointed€outÏthat€the€beneficiary€had€no€legal€right€to€the€benefits€of€the€policy€while€the€insured€ward€still€livedÏbecause€the€policy€contained€a€clause€reserving€the€right€to€change€the€beneficiary€prior€to€the€deathÏof€the€insured.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€84„85,€132€S.W.2d€at€208.€€Nevertheless,€the€Court€noted€that€the€ward,Ïwhile€still€competent,€had€indicated€her€desire€for€the€defendant€to€collect€the€proceeds€of€the€policyÏby€naming€her€beneficiary.€€ò òòòIdóóó ó.€at€85,€132€S.W.2d€at€208.€€The€Court€then€quoted€with€approvalÏthe€following€from€ò òòòCorpus€Jurisó óóó:ÌÓÓà8 àð ðBefore€the€character€of€the€interest€in€property,€held€by€a€[ward],€can€be€changed,Ïit€must€be€made€manifest€that€it€is€necessary€to€protect€and€promote€his€interest.€ÏAlthough€as€a€rule,€the€court€will€preserve,€so€far€as€possible,€the€interests€of€theÏsuccession,€this€rule€yields€to€the€paramount€rule€which€makes€the€wardððs€welfareÏthe€first€consideration€without€regard€to€the€rights€of€those€who€may€haveÏeventually€rights€to€succession.ððÌÌÓÓò òòòIdó óóó.Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€also€required€proof€of€necessity€under€similar€facts€inÌ€òòò òMorris€v.€Morrisó óóó,€195€Tenn.€133,€258€S.W.2d€732€(1953).€€In€ò òòòMorrisó óóó,€the€plaintiff€sought€toÏrecover€the€proceeds€of€several€United€States€Savings€Bonds€payable€to€the€ward€or€the€plaintiff.€Ïòòò òId.ó óóó€at€134„35,€258€S.W.2d€at€733.€€The€lawsuit€was€filed€against€the€former€guardian€of€the€ward,Ïalleging€that€the€guardian€had€redeemed€the€savings€bonds€and€had€reinvested€the€proceeds€of€theseÏbonds€in€various€instruments€made€payable€to€the€guardian€or€the€ward.€€ò òòòIdóóó ó.€at€135„36,€258ÏS.W.2d€at€733.€€The€plaintiff€contended€that€he€was€entitled€to€recover€the€proceeds€since€theÏguardian€had€presented€no€evidence€that€cashing€the€bonds€was€necessary€for€the€wardððs€upkeep.€Ïòòò òIdó óóó.€at€136,€258€S.W.2d€at€733.Ìà àIn€determining€that€the€plaintiff€was€entitled€to€recover€the€proceeds€of€the€savings€bonds,Ïthe€òòò òMorrisó óóó€Court€relied€on€the€Arkansas€case€of€òòò òTaylor€v.€Schlotfeltó óóó,€237€S.W.2d€890€(Ark.Ï1951),€in€which€the€Arkansas€Supreme€Court€held€that,€where€one€co„owner€had€bought€UnitedÏStates€Savings€Bonds€with€the€intention€that€his€co„owner€should€receive€the€proceeds€when€theÏpurchaser€œdied,›€and€the€œpurchaser€was€later›€œjudged›€incompetent,€the€guardian€in€possession€of€theÏmaturing€bonds€could€not€cash€them€except€to€reinvest€the€proceeds€in€the€same€way€as€the€originalÏbonds,€ð ðunless€the€proceeds€were€needed€to€support€and€care€for€the€incompetent.ðð€€òòò òMorrisó óóó,€195ÏTenn.€at€137,€258€S.W.2d€at€734.€€While€òòò òMorris€ó óóódealt€with€United€States€Savings€Bonds,€whichÏwere€subject€to€certain€federal€regulations,€ò òòòMorrisó óóó,€195€Tenn.€at€137,€258€S.W.2d€at€733„34,€theÏrequirement€that€the€fiduciary€demonstrate€that€the€transaction€was€necessary€to€protect€the€interestÏof€the€ward€is€applicable€to€the€facts€presented€in€the€instant€case.€€€€ò òòòSee€Howard€v.€Imesó óóó,€90ÏSo.€2d€818,€819€(Ala.€1956);€39€ò òòòAm.€Jur.2d€Guardian€and€Wardó óóó€ðð€209€(1968).Ìà àAccordingly,€we€hold€that€Mrs.€Smith€had€the€burden€to€prove€that€cashing€the€CDS€andÏtransferring€the€proceeds€to€the€Conservatorship€Account€was€necessary€to€protect€and€promote€theÏinterest€of€Mr.€Smith.€€Even€if€Mrs.€Smithððs€actions€were€done€in€good€faith€in€order€to€carry€outÏher€duties€as€a€conservator,€establishing€necessity€was€required.€€€€Ìà àIn€the€instant€case,€Mrs.€Smith€failed€to€show€that€redeeming€the€CDS€and€depositing€theÏproceeds€in€the€Conservatorship€Account€was€necessary€to€protect€and€promote€Mr.€SmithððsÏinterest.€€The€undisputed€proof€showed€that€there€was€approximately€$14,000€in€theÏConservatorship€Account€and€only€$2,123.01€of€outstanding€medical€bills€when€Mrs.€SmithÏredeemed€the€CDS.€€œThus,›€the€evidence€preponderates€against€a€finding€that€the€proceeds€from€theÏCDs€were€necessary€to€provide€care€and€support€for€the€incompetent.€€œTherefore,›€we€hold€thatÏMrs.€Smith€breached€her€fiduciary€duty€when€she€redeemed€the€CDS€and€deposited€the€proceeds€inÏthe€Conservatorship€Account.€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àWe€next€consider€whether€a€constructive€trust€was€created€as€to€the€portion€of€the€proceedsÏfrom€the€CDS€which€passed€to€Mrs.€Smith€under€Mr.€Smithððs€will.€€Equity€creates€a€constructiveÍtrust€as€a€means€of€ensuring€that€justice€is€done.€€€òòò òAkers€v.€Gillentineó óóó,€191€Tenn.€35,€39,€231ÏS.W.2d€369,€371€(1948);€òòò òRowlett€v.€Guthrieó óóó,€€867€S.W.2d€732,€734€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€AÏconstructive€trust€typically€is€imposed€on€one€whoÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓby€fraud,€actual€or€constructive,€by€duress€or€abuse€of€confidence,€by€commissionÏof€wrong,€or€by€any€form€of€unconscionable€conduct,€artifice,€concealment,€orÏquestionable€means,€or€who€in€any€way€against€equity€and€good€conscience,€eitherÏhas€obtained€or€holds€the€legal€title€to€property€which€he€ought€not,€in€equity€andÏgood€conscience€hold€and€enjoy.€€ÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° Òòòò òÌÓÓLivesay€v.€Keatonó óóó,€611€S.W.2d€581,€584€(Tenn.€App.€1980)€(citation€omitted).€€TennesseeÏcourts€have€imposed€constructive€trusts€in€four€specific€types€of€cases.€€They€are€(1)€where€oneÏacquires€the€legal€title€to€property€in€violation€of€an€express€or€implied€duty€owed€to€the€trueÏowner,€(2)€where€one€obtains€the€title€to€property€through€fraud,€duress,€or€some€other€inequitableÏmeans,€(3)€where€one€uses€a€relation€of€influence€or€confidence€to€acquire€the€legal€title€to€propertyÏupon€terms€more€advantageous€than€those€which€could€otherwise€have€been€acquired,€and€(4)Ïwhere€one€obtains€property€with€notice€that€another€is€entitled€to€that€propertyððs€benefits.€€òòò òMyersÏv.€Myersó óóó€,€891€S.W.2d€216,€219€(Tenn.€App.€1994);€ò òòòGibson's€Suits€in€Chanceryóóó ó€ðð€383Ï(7th€ed.€1988).€Ìà àIn€this€case,€Mrs.€Smith€violated€her€fiduciary€duty€when€she€improperly€redeemed€the€ÏCDS€and€captured€their€value€in€Mr.€Smithððs€estate.€€Consequently,€a€constructive€trust€is€imposedÏagainst€Mrs.€Smith€for€the€proceeds€which€passed€to€Mrs.€Smith€under€Mr.€Smithððs€will,€one€halfÏthe€value€of€the€CDS.€€€€On€remand,€Ms.€Murray€is€entitled€to€receive€the€full€value€of€the€CDS,Ïplus€post„judgment€interest€from€the€date€that€Mrs.€Smith€cashed€the€CDS,€minus€the€amount,€ifÏany,€that€Ms.€Murray€received€from€Mr.€Smithððs€estate€that€is€attributable€to€the€CDS.€€Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€Opinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€Appellee,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€€€ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J..ÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óÌÌ