ÿWPCj" ßèžžÙÿßi^ê M;ÂuÉ–2`y@¿—ÖÕ1ˆhj¯L‰±ðhšö–e3õºL_ñj"6ŸT¼Í)f:÷AŸX¡2(Ø”[®MŸßdßÖzC SÞ‚±¹9YrÄv„Œ$9Ö„J¼ù@Äô_Q>6ïöÙö?I¦ƒ‡=1ÿÌúÁ{•2Ç«ñÖ‘Ùñ¦Á;ƒ9].[Í<ê)ø°Üµ±j*›ÅedÞÓ!³íò±/¨ 0ˆaÛab{` ëoÓY§JµN-W:Õ£|÷Ô5Ã4K¹ÂúL¤X?„ › hcPÏÜ"[п=¼ˆÕÓ‹ÁyoÞTä Mm¸R$lp¯ ¶(zV\2öôËQðSgS°³B÷˜Ü»Æ¨Ó¿nð'Ÿ)‚…HO½¡ßÎÂÓ!õX‚¼ð©HAº}€;-Ý]ð „™ Ž3h èœ-{ àuBmtÞI°HsãìOá¼ãb¢s„ÜL—5ôÝÈ‚J»ÏxkÙþŸ¼8©Ýiè;<|Fª8¡\Ó©A8NÉòK‹ˆû÷PÆoNuR2ÎHê“àÒI2Ú€Ë~A•¦øÇ !»vÜäMkü1}ˆ"9{¥ = (x^RÙ$\UdÙ¤bU/N\ %ª 0ˆ°#Á8 Œù Ú… ^ _ zk Òå ]·  mw-Æ1Æ÷ƽƃ4IN]1_ &E¶¸ 0 DÇÇ UNi'q ˜ø  ʘb¡c É Õrëëëëëëb]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] 0 ëeeee BPP 0¤m D5 D-F 0Kss AS¾Æ 0¤× 0D{! A«¿!(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION3.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\opinion3.wpt,t-s  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt SÝ ƒRs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýtò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSeveral€years€after€this€will€was€executed€in€September€of€1984,€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€purchased€this€farm€from€hisÐ ° Ðfather,€and€resold€it€at€a€profit€two€months€later.ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 59‚±,´¥¡ 'Ý ƒRs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýtò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDr.€Wells€examined€the€testator€again€in€December€1990€and€determined€that€it€was€appropriate€for€aÐ ° Ðconservator€to€be€appointed€for€him€at€that€time.\Opinion Summary3|x(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒRs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýtò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€jury€was€instructed€that€the€presumption€of€undue€influence€could€be€overcome€by€clear€and€convincingÐ ° Ðevidence€that€the€codicil€was€ð ðnot€the€result€of€undue€influence.ðð€€In€addition,€the€jury€was€told€that€in€making€aÐ tÄ Ðdetermination€as€to€undue€influence,€it€could€consider€whether€the€terms€of€the€codicil€unduly€benefitted€the€beneficiaries.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular  Ý ƒRs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýtò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€the€document€at€issue€is€entitled€codicil,€it€revokes€all€prior€wills€and€codicils.€€We€will€continue€toÐ ° Ðrefer€to€it€as€a€codicil.3 îÝ ƒRs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýtò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€indicates€that€the€prior€two€codicils€were€not€drafted€by€Mr.€Forrester,€who€wrote€the€original€will. ÀÝ ƒRs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýtò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThere€were€actually€three€codicils€prior€to€the€1990€one€at€issue. ÷Ý ƒRs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýtò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€this€document€is€titled€ð ðCodicil€No.€1,ðð€it€is€actually€the€second€codicil€to€the€February€10,€1976,€will. —Ý ƒRs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýtò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWhen€questioned€about€the€motion€to€dismiss,€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€testified,€ð ðMy€dad€wasnððt€in€that€petition.ðð€HeÐ ° Ðalso€stated€the€motion€was€filed€by€an€attorney€ð ðthat€I€hired€to€file€on€his€[the€testatorððs]€behalf.ðð9 ¿Ý ƒRs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýtò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€pattern€instruction€uses€the€term€ð ðchief€beneficiary.ðð Ñ ° Ñ hÝ ƒRs$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýtò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€1990€codicil€purported€to€revoke€all€other€wills€and€codicils€including€an€earlier€bequest€of€real€propertyÐ ° Ðto€an€employee€of€testator.€€Nothing€in€the€record€explains€this€change€of€intention€by€the€testator.€- ù-(|G2s$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€RÄ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýtò»»Ô d(|3IT$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€RÄ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3IT$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€RÄ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€RÄ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼RÄ»»»ÔÑ8€ðXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€'OYÑà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îMmRÄÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼RÄ»îîMm#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJuly€13,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XðX»¼RÄÔÌò òÔ#†¼RÄ»XXð#ÔIN€THE€MATTER€OF€THE€ESTATE€OF€S.W.€BRINDLEY,€DECEASEDÔ‡XðX»¼RÄÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€AppealÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†ÙÔ€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Giles€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€9944€€€Stella€L.€Hargrove,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„02224„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€August€7,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÔ% ‡ ÔÓ  ÓThis€is€a€will€contest€between€two€siblings.€€After€the€onset€of€the€partiesðð€fatherððs€final€illness,Ð xÈ  Ðduring€which€his€competence€was€questioned€and€eventually€a€conservator€appointed,€Ô%†ÜÔthe€fatherÐ d´ Ðexecuted€a€codicil€to€his€will€that€materially€altered€the€distribution€of€his€estate€in€favor€of€his€son,Ð P  Ðthe€appellant€herein.€€The€testatorððs€daughter€challenged€the€validity€of€the€codicil€in€the€underlyingÐ <Œ Ðaction.€€After€the€jury€found€that€the€codicil€was€not€the€testatorððs€ð ðown€free€act,ðð€but€was€insteadÐ (x Ðthe€result€of€undue€influence€on€the€sonððs€part,€the€codicil€was€declared€a€nullity.€€We€affirm€theÐ d Ðjuryððs€verdict.Ð P ÐÓéÓÌò òÔ% ‡$ ÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€RightÔ%†$/Ô;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ Ø( ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓPatricia€J.€Cottrell,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,Ð œì ÐW.S.,óó€and€òòAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌThomas€W.€Hardin,€Kim€B.€Kettering,€Columbia,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Robert€Brindley,€Sr.Ð `° ÐÌRobert€C.€Henry,€William€Stuart€Fleming,€Columbia,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Linda€BrindleyÐ 8!ˆ  ÐDale.€Ð $"t! ÐÔ#†¼RÄ»XXð#ÔÔ‡XðX»¼RÄÔÓ×ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼RÄ»XXðÉ #ÔÐ ü#L# ÐÌÔ€XðX»¼RÄÔÓ  Óà  àThis€is€a€will€contest€between€two€siblings,€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô,€Sr.,€and€Linda€Brindley€Dale,Ð ú%J!% Ðover€a€codicil€executed€by€their€father,€S.W.€Brindley€(ð ðthe€testatorðð),€at€a€time€when€his€competenceÐ æ&6"& Ðhad€been€questioned€and€after€a€conservatorship€proceeding€had€been€initiated.€€The€codicil€Ð Ò'"#' Ðmaterially€altered€the€distribution€of€his€estate,€as€established€in€prior€testamentary€documents,€€inÐ ¾($( Ðfavor€of€his€son.€€In€the€underlying€action,€the€testatorððs€daughter,€Linda€Dale,€challenged€the€validityÐ ª)ú$) Ðof€the€codicil.€€Although€the€jury€found€that€the€testator€had€been€of€sound€mind€on€the€date€heÐ –*æ%* Ðexecuted€the€disputed€codicil,€it€also€found€that€the€codicil€was€not€the€testatorððs€ð ðown€free€act,ðð€butÐ ‚+Ò&+ Ðwas€instead€the€result€of€undue€influence€by€the€son,€Robert€Brindley.€€The€codicil€was€declared€aÐ n,¾', Ðnullity.€Ð Z-ª(-ý Їà  àMr.€Brindley€has€appealed€and€argues:€(1)€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€his€motion€forÐ ° Ðdirected€verdict,€made€at€the€close€of€the€proof,€on€the€issue€of€undue€influence;€(2)€the€verdict€isÐ œì Ðagainst€the€weight€of€the€evidence€on€the€issue€of€undue€influence,€and€the€trial€court€failed€toÐ ˆØ Ðexercise€its€duty€as€the€thirteenth€juror€in€approving€the€verdict;€and€(3)€the€jury€was€improperlyÐ tÄ Ðinstructed€as€to€undue€influence.Ð `° ÐÌà@iiìàI.€€Standard€of€ReviewˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àOur€standard€of€review€of€a€juryððs€factual€findings€in€a€civil€action€is€limited€to€determiningÐ  ` Ðwhether€any€material€evidence€supported€the€verdict.€òò€óóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€The€appellate€courtsÐ ü L  Ðdo€not€determine€the€credibility€of€witnesses€or€weigh€evidence€on€appeal€from€a€jury€verdict.€òòÐ è 8  ÐConatser€v.€Clarksville€Coca€Cola€Bottling€Co.óó,€920€S.W.2d€646,€647€(Tenn.€1995);€òòBenson€v.Ð Ô$  ÐTennessee€Valley€Elec.€Coop.óó,€868€S.W.2d€630,€638-39€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€Where€the€recordÐ À  Ðcontains€material€evidence€supporting€the€verdict,€the€judgment€based€on€that€verdict€will€not€beÐ ¬ü  Ðdisturbed€on€appeal.€òò€Reynolds€v.€Ozark€Motor€Lines,€Inc.óó,€887€S.W.2d€822,€823€(Tenn.€1994).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€reviewing€the€denial€of€a€motion€for€directed€verdict,€this€court€must€take€the€strongestÐ pÀ Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€non„movant,€and€all€evidenceÐ \¬ Ðcontrary€to€that€view€must€be€discarded.€òò€State€Farm€Gen.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Woodóó,€1€S.W.3d€658,€662Ð H˜ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€A€directed€verdict€is€not€appropriate€when€there€are€material€disputed€factsÐ 4„ Ðor€when€there€is€disagreement€regarding€the€conclusions€that€could€be€drawn€from€the€evidenceÐ  p Ðpresented.€€òòMitchell€v.€Smithóó,€779€S.W.2d€384,€387€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€Viewing€the€evidenceÐ  \ Ðin€accordance€with€those€principles:€Ð øH ÐÔ‡XðXXXðÔÌà8  àA€directed€verdict€is€appropriate€only€when€the€evidence€is€susceptible€to€but€oneÐ Ð  Ðconclusion.€.€.€.€€As€this€Court€has€stated,€ð ðThe€court€may€grant€the€motion€only€if,Ð ¼  Ðafter€assessing€the€evidence€according€to€the€foregoing€standards,€it€determines€thatÐ ¨ø Ðreasonable€minds€could€not€differ€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€theÐ ”ä Ðevidence.ððЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌòòAlexander€v.€Armentroutóó,€24€S.W.3d€267,€271€(Tenn.€2000)€(citations€omitted).Ð X ¨ ÐÔ#†XðXXXð=#ÔÌà  àInòò€Alexanderóó,€our€Supreme€Court€discussed€the€interplay€between€the€standard€of€review€forÐ 0"€  Ðdirected€verdict€and€the€material€evidence€rule.€€In€that€case,€the€Court€determined€that€the€court€ofÐ #l! Ðappeals€had€correctly€stated€the€applicable€standard€of€review€for€a€motion€for€directed€verdict,€asÐ $X" Ðset€out€above,€but€had€misapplied€the€standard€when€evaluating€the€evidence.€€òòAlexanderóó,€24€S.W.2dÐ ô$D # Ðat€271.€€The€error€on€the€part€of€the€intermediate€court€was€engaging€in€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðevidence€ð ðin€that€it€appears€to€have€disregarded€the€juryððs€findings€and€to€have€reevaluated€theÐ Ì&"% Ðevidence€in€its€entirety.ðð€€òòIdóó.;€òòsee€also€Williams€v.€Brownóó,€860€S.W.2d€854,€857€(Tenn.€1993)Ð ¸'#& Ð(holding€that€on€review€of€the€grant€of€a€directed€verdict,€it€is€not€the€office€of€an€appellate€court€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðweigh€the€evidence).€€In€òòAlexanderóó,€the€Supreme€Court€then€proceeded€to€examine€the€sufficiencyÐ )à$( Ðof€the€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€juryððs€specific€factual€findings,€reflected€in€a€specialÐ |*Ì%) Ðverdict€form,€and€found,€under€the€ð ðno€material€evidence€rule,ðð€that€there€was€evidence€to€supportÐ h+¸&* Ðthose€findings.€€òòAlexanderóó,€24€S.W.2d€at€271„72.€€Those€findings€of€fact€determined€the€legal€issuesÐ ° Ðinvolved,€and€the€Court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€directed€verdict.€€òòIdóó.€at€274.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€accord€with€this€guidance,€our€first€task€is€to€determine€whether€there€is€material€evidenceÐ tÄ Ðin€the€record€to€support€the€juryððs€findings.€€If€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryððsÐ `° Ðfindings,€then,€of€necessity,€granting€a€directed€verdict€for€the€losing€party€would€have€been€improperÐ L œ Ðbecause€the€evidence€permitted€reasonable€minds€to€reach€a€conclusion€different€from€that€assertedÐ 8 ˆ Ðby€the€losing€party.€€The€special€verdict€form€in€the€record€before€us€indicates€that€when€asked€€ð ðWasÐ $ t Ðthe€execution€of€the€Final€Codicil€by€S.W.€Brindley€his€own€free€act€and€will€and€not€the€result€ofÐ  ` Ðundue€influence€of€Mr.€Brindley?ðð€the€jury€answered€ð ðNo.ðð€€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ôððs€argument€herein€isÐ ü L  Ðthat€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient€to€establish€the€requisite€legal€elements€of€ð ðundue€influence.ðð€€WeÐ è 8  Ðbegin€with€the€evidence€presented€at€trial.€Ð Ô$  ÐÌÓ  ÓII.€€The€EvidenceÐ ¬ü  ÐÓa%ÓÌà  àAlthough€he€had€little€formal€schooling,€the€testator€successfully€built€up€a€number€ofÐ „Ô  Ðbusinesses.€€According€to€his€initial€will,€which€he€jointly€and€separately€executed€with€his€wife,Ð pÀ ÐEdna€Brindley,€in€February€of€1976,€the€testator€owned€a€lumber€yard,€a€service€station,€a€sheet€metalÐ \¬ Ðshop,€a€coal€yard,€a€farm,€and€twelve€pieces€of€rental€property.€€He€also€owned€a€trucking€companyÐ H˜ Ðand€a€construction€business,€which€he€transferred€to€his€son,€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô,€Sr.,€long€before€theÐ 4„ Ðevents€in€question.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€initial€will€provided€that€all€real€and€personal€property€of€the€testator,€S.W.€Brindley,€andÐ øH Ðhis€wife,€Edna€Brindley,€would€pass€to€the€survivor.€€At€the€survivorððs€death,€the€lumber€yard€andÐ ä4 Ðthe€real€property€on€which€the€service€station,€sheet€metal€shop,€and€coal€yard€were€located€wereÐ Ð  Ðbequeathed€to€Linda€Dale.€€The€farm€was€left€to€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô,€Sr.,Ô_Ô׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€and€the€siblings€were€to€shareÐ ¼  Ðequally€in€the€twelve€pieces€of€rental€property€and€a€home€located€on€Madison€Street€in€Ô_ÔPulaskiÔ_Ô,Ð ¨ø ÐTennessee.€€The€will€provided€that€any€future€property€the€testators€acquired€was€to€be€shared€equallyÐ ”ä Ðbetween€the€siblings,€including€all€stocks,€bonds,€and€bank€accounts.€€Linda€Dale€was€appointed€toÐ €Ð Ðserve€as€executrix€without€bond,€and€in€the€event€of€her€death,€the€President€of€Union€Bank€wasÐ l¼ Ðdesignated€to€serve€in€her€place.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àLinda€Dale€began€working€at€her€fatherððs€lumber€yard€in€the€late€1950ððs€while€in€high€school,Ð 0"€  Ðand€worked€there€continuously€since€that€time.€€Her€husband,€Terry€Dale,€began€working€there€inÐ #l! Ð1961.€€In€late€1979,€Linda€Dale,€her€parents€and€her€husband€executed€a€partnership€agreementÐ $X" Ðrelating€to€the€lumber€yard,€transferring€49%€of€the€business€to€the€Dales.€€Linda€Dale€testified€thatÐ ô$D # Ðher€father€had€assured€her€that€she€and€her€husband€would€eventually€own€the€lumber€yard.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àRobert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€also€worked€at€the€lumber€yard€for€a€few€years€after€he€left€high€school.€€HeÐ ¸'#& Ðthen€started€a€construction€company,€which€he€still€operated€at€the€time€of€trial€herein.€€Initially,€heÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpurchased€the€business€from€his€father.€€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€described€this€transaction€as€simply€theÐ ° Ðpurchase€of€some€tools,€and€the€license€went€with€the€purchase.Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€June€of€1980,€S.W.€Brindley€and€Edna€Brindley€executed€a€codicil€to€their€will.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðcodicil€reiterated€that€they€wished€Linda€Dale€to€be€their€executrix.€€However,€it€stipulated€that€if€sheÐ `° Ðpredeceased€her€parents,€her€brother,€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô,€was€to€serve€as€executor.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àSeveral€years€later,€the€testator€began€experiencing€heart€problems.€€In€July€1983,€he€sufferedÐ $ t Ðseveral€heart€attacks€and€underwent€open€heart€surgery.€€He€enjoyed€a€full€recovery€from€the€surgeryÐ  ` Ðand€was€able€to€continue€his€businesses,€care€for€himself,€and€drive.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€February€of€1984,€the€testator€and€his€wife€executed€a€power€of€attorney€to€Linda€Dale.€Ð Ô$  ÐAt€some€unspecified€time€in€1984,€the€testatorððs€wife,€Mrs.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô,€broke€her€hip.€€During€surgeryÐ À  Ðon€her€hip,€she€suffered€a€stroke€which€left€her€unable€to€speak.€€After€her€hospitalization€and€a€briefÐ ¬ü  Ðperiod€in€a€nursing€home,€the€testator€brought€her€home,€where€she€received€round„the„clock€care.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àAfter€his€wife€suffered€the€stroke,€the€testator€executed€a€second€codicil€to€the€will.׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ThisÐ pÀ Ðcodicil,€dated€February€13,€1985,€reaffirmed€the€testatorððs€intent€to€bequeath€all€his€interest€in€theÐ \¬ Ðlumber€yard€to€Linda€Dale€and€specifically€defined€the€scope€of€the€interests€in€the€business€heÐ H˜ Ðintended€to€convey.€€It€stated:Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àWhereas,€by€Item€IV€of€my€Last€Will€and€Testament€dated€the€20th€day€of€February,Ð  \ Ð1976,€in€the€first€sentence€thereof,€I€devised€and€bequeathed€to€my€daughter,€LindaÐ øH ÐBrindley€Dale,€the€lumber€yard€property.€€It€was€then€and€is€now€my€intent€and€I€doÐ ä4 Ðhereby€devise€and€bequeath€to€my€daughter,€Linda€Brindley€Dale,€the€entire€lumberÐ Ð  Ðyard€property€which€shall€include€not€only€the€real€estate€and€all€appurtenances€andÐ ¼  Ðfixtures€affixed€thereto€but€it€shall€also€include€my€interest€in€the€business€knownÐ ¨ø Ðthen€as€S.W.€Brindley€and€Son€Coal€and€Lumber€Company€and€now€known€as€S.W.Ð ”ä ÐBrindley€and€Dale€Coal€and€Lumber€Company€and€all€assets€associated€therewith.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€March€30,€1987,€the€testator€executed€a€third€codicil€to€his€will.€€This€codicil€made€aÐ X ¨ Ðspecific€devise€of€a€piece€of€real€property€and€residence€to€John€Coleman,€one€of€the€testatorððsÐ D!” Ðemployees.€€It€also€stated,€ð ðIn€all€other€respects,€I€hereby€reaffirm€my€Last€Will€and€Testament€datedÐ 0"€  ÐFebruary€10,€1976.ððÐ #l! ÐÌà  àIn€September€of€1988,€the€testatorððs€heart€problems€worsened€and€his€doctors€advised€himÐ ô$D # Ðto€have€a€second€surgery,€which€he€underwent€on€September€28,€1988.€€It€was€after€this€secondÐ à%0!$ Ðsurgery€that€a€number€of€circumstances€changed.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àAccording€to€Linda€Dale,€the€testator€was€ð ðvery€confusedðð€after€the€surgery.€€While€in€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcritical€care€unit€after€the€surgery,€he€became€convinced€that€he€was€going€home€and€would€roll€upÐ )à$( Ðthe€mattress€cover€and€refuse€to€stay€in€bed.€€Once€he€was€moved€into€a€room,€he€appeared€to€believeÐ ° Ðthat€he€was€riding€on€a€train€through€Alabama€and€Missouri.€€He€also€attempted€to€run€away€and€wasÐ œì Ðdiscovered€barefoot€in€his€pajamas€walking€out€the€front€door€of€the€hospital.€€Linda€Dale€hiredÐ ˆØ Ðprivate€sitters€to€stay€with€her€father€until€his€discharge.€€After€two€weeks€in€the€hospital,€Linda€DaleÐ tÄ Ðbrought€her€father€home.€€She€found€him€very€confused€and€at€times€violent,€although€she€had€notÐ `° Ðknown€him€to€be€violent€in€the€past.€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àAfter€consulting€testatorððs€cardiologist,€Linda€Dale€then€took€her€father€to€a€psychiatrist,€Dr.Ð $ t ÐTreadway.€€Dr.€Treadway€admitted€the€testator€to€the€mental€ward€at€St.€Thomas€Hospital€inÐ  ` ÐNashville€on€December€29,€1988.€€The€testator€was€discharged€on€January€19,€1989,€and€returnedÐ ü L  Ðhome.€€However,€according€to€Linda€Dale€he€was€actually€worse.Ð è 8  ÐÌà8  àHe€would€slap€at€you,€and€he€would€run€out€the€door,€and€he€would€„„€he€kept€saying,Ð À  Ðyou€know,€he€wasnððt€at€home.€€Heððd€like€to€go€to€his€[home].€.€.€He€demanded€Ms.Ð ¬ü  ÐKelly,€Clara€Kelly,€who€was€sitting€with€Mother€at€the€time,€and€he€told€her,€youÐ ˜è  Ðknow,€he€didnððt€know€who€she€was€and€ordered€her€to€leave.€€And€he€kept€tellingÐ „Ô  ÐMother€to€get€up€and€fix€his€dinner.€€And,€of€course,€Mother€was€an€invalid€by€thenÐ pÀ Ðand€wasnððt€even€able€to€sit€up,€and€he€didnððt€realize€that.€€And€he€spoke€about€thingsÐ \¬ Ðwe€didnððt€understand€.€.€.€he€thought€that€Mother€was€on€a€hill,€and€he€was€going€toÐ H˜ Ðhire€a€helicopter€to€come€and€get€him€and€Mother€and€take€them€home.€€And€heÐ 4„ Ðtalked€about€his€pistols,€and€he€talked€about€using€that€pistol€on€himself.€€And€heÐ  p Ðwanted€to€know€if€he€put€the€pistol€in€one€ear€and€he€pulled€the€trigger,€would€it€killÐ  \ Ðhim€or€would€it€just€come€out€the€other€side.ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àLinda€Dale€had€her€father€readmitted€to€St.€Thomas€Hospital€on€January€21,€1989,€where€heÐ Ð  Ðremained€until€February€13,€1989.€€During€this€admission,€Linda€Dale€arranged€for€her€mother€to€beÐ ¼  Ðplaced€in€a€nursing€home.€€After€her€fatherððs€discharge€from€St.€Thomas,€he€was€placed€in€theÐ ¨ø Ðnursing€home€as€well,€in€the€room€next€to€his€wife.€€Linda€Dale€continued€to€employ€sitters€to€remainÐ ”ä Ðwith€her€mother€around€the€clock.€€Linda€Dale€testified€that€her€father€got€to€the€point€whereÐ €Ð Ðsomebody€had€to€stay€in€the€room€with€him€or€he€required€restraint€to€prevent€him€Ô_ÔinjuringÔ_Ô€himself.Ð l¼ ÐÌÓ  ÓA.€The€ConservatorshipÐ D!” ÐÓäJÓÔ‡XðXXXðÔÌà  àOn€October€25,€1989,€Linda€Dale€petitioned€for€appointment€of€a€conservator€for€her€father.€Ð #l! ÐIn€that€petition,€she€alleged€that€her€father,€the€testator€herein,€was€and€had€been€for€almost€one€yearÐ $X" Ðincapable€of€managing€his€estate.€€She€attached€letters€from€her€fatherððs€physicians,€Dr.€Ô_ÔHaneyÔ_Ô€andÐ ô$D # ÐDr.€Grossman,€both€dated€December€1988,€stating€that€the€testator€was€incompetent€to€manage€hisÐ à%0!$ Ðaffairs.€Ô#†XðXXXð+K#ÔThe€December€9,€1988,€letter€from€the€testatorððs€cardiologist,€Laurence€Grossman,€M.D.,Ð Ì&"% Ðstated:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  àMr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€has€been€quite€ill€in€the€past.€€He€has€coronary€heart€disease,€advanced.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âHe€is€diabetic€and€has€cerebrovascular€disease.€€He€has€many€periods€of€confusionÐ |*Ì%) Ðand€disorientation.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€is€incapable€at€this€time€of€managing€his€ownÐ ° Ðaffairs,€both€financial€and€otherwise.МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌà  àThe€December€12,€1988,€letter€by€C.D.€Ô_ÔHaneyÔ_Ô,€M.D.,€the€testatorððs€longtime€physician,Ð tÄ Ðstated:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àMr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€is€an€80„year„old,€white€male€that€has€had€some€very€serious€medicalÐ 8 ˆ Ðproblems€including€diabetes€Ô_ÔmellitisÔ_Ô,€severe€coronary€artery€disease€andÐ $ t Ðatherosclerotic€cerebral€vascular€disease.€€He€has€recently€become€confused€at€times,Ð  ` Ðforgetful,€disoriented€and€his€judgment€has€been€impaired€to€the€point€that€he€isÐ ü L  Ðunable€to€handle€his€own€affairs€in€a€reasonable€manner.€€It€is€my€opinion€that€theÐ è 8  Ðcourts€should€appoint€someone€to€watch€after€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ôððs€affairs,€both€financialÐ Ô$  Ðand€otherwise.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àÔ‡XðXXXðÔAlso€attached€to€the€petition€were€affidavits€from€Dr.€Grossman€and€Dr.€Ô_ÔTreadwayÔ_ÔÔ#†XðXXXðªS#ÔÔ‡XðXXXðÔ,€theÐ ˜è  ÐÔ_ÔpsychiatristsÔ_Ô€who€had€treated€the€testator,€Ô#†XðXXXð\T#Ôin€the€form€of€certificates€of€examination,€Ô‡XðXXXðÔdated€OctoberÐ „Ô  Ð1989Ô#†XðXXXð0U#Ô,€that€attested€that€the€testator€was€currently€unable€to€manage€his€affairs€ð ðby€reason€of€sufferingÐ pÀ Ðfrom€a€physical€incapacity€or€mental€weakness.ððÐ \¬ ÐÔ‡XðXXXðÔÌà  àThe€petition€also€alleged€that€Linda€Dale€had€learned€that€ð ðon€September€26,€1989,€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_ÔÐ 4„ ÐÔ_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô,€during€his€incompetency,€revoked€a€valid€general€power€of€attorney€granted€to€theÐ  p ÐPetitioner€[Linda€Dale]ðð€and€that€the€testator€had€signed€a€power€of€attorney€making€his€son,€RobertÐ  \ ÐÔ_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô,€his€attorney€in€fact.€€The€petition€further€alleged€that:€Ð øH ÐÌà8  àRobert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€has€attempted€to€use€the€invalid€power€of€attorney€to€gain€access€toÐ Ð  Ðthe€business€records€of€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€and€Dale,€a€partnership€which€is€owned€51%Ð ¼  Ðby€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€and€wife,€Edna€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€and€49%€by€Linda€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€Dale€andÐ ¨ø Ðhusband€Terry€Dale.€€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€knows€or€should€know€that€his€power€ofÐ ”ä Ðattorney€is€invalid€and€has€maliciously€used€said€invalid€power€of€attorney€to€interfereÐ €Ð Ðwith€the€partnership€business€of€the€Petitioner€and€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô.€€The€partnershipÐ l¼ Ðwill€suffer€irreparable€harm€unless€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€is€restrained€from€using€theÐ X ¨ Ðinvalid€power€of€attorney.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àA€guardian€ad€litem€was€appointed€who€answered€the€petition€by€denying€that€the€testatorÐ #l! Ðwas€incompetent€and€denying€the€need€for€the€appointment€of€a€conservator.€€In€the€answer,€theÐ $X" Ðguardian€ad€litem€responded€to€the€above„quoted€allegation€by€admitting€that€the€testator€hadÐ ô$D # Ðrevoked€the€previously€existing€power€of€attorney€which€made€Linda€Dale€his€attorney€in€fact€and,Ð à%0!$ Ðabout€the€same€time,€executed€a€power€of€attorney€ð ðfor€his€son,€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô.ðð€€The€guardian€adÐ Ì&"% Ðlitem€further€admitted€ð ðRobert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô,€at€the€request€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô,€and€acting€through€theÐ ¸'#& ÐPower€of€Attorney,€requested€an€audit€of€business€records€of€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€and€Dale€.€.€.€.ððÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àÌà  àRobert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€opposed€the€conservatorship€and€later€testified€that€he€spent€€Ô#†XðXXXð[V#Ôaround€$40,000Ð |*Ì%) Ðto€$50,000€in€attorneyððs€fees€contesting€the€petition,€ð ðfightingðð€to€keep€his€father€from€being€declaredÐ h+¸&* Ðincompetent.€€Ô‡XðXXXðÔHe€testified€that€his€father€did€not€want€to€be€declared€incompetent€and€that€he,€Robert,Ð ° Ðdid€not€believe€that€his€father€was€incompetent€to€handle€his€affairs€at€that€time.€€As€part€of€theÐ œì Ðefforts€to€oppose€the€conservatorship,€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô,€Sr.,€took€his€father€to€another€doctor,€Dr.Ð ˆØ ÐWells,€a€Ô#†XðXXXðHb#Ôneurologist„psychiatristÔ‡XðXXXðÔ,€for€an€examination.Ð tÄ ÐÌÔ#†XðXXXð)d#Ôà  àDr.€Wells€examined€the€testator€on€November€27,€1989.€€He€talked€for€over€an€hour€with€theÐ L œ Ðtestator€and€briefly€with€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€before€examining€the€testator.€€Dr.€Wells€concluded€that€thereÐ 8 ˆ Ðwas€no€evidence€of€serious€impairment€of€the€testatorððs€memory€or€other€cognitive€functions.€€TheÐ $ t Ðdoctor€felt€there€was€no€reason€why€the€testator€was€not€competent€to€manage€his€own€life€and€hisÐ  ` Ðbusiness€affairs.Ð ü L  ÐÔ‡XðXXXðÔÌà  àThereafter,€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€petition€for€conservatorship€was€also€filed€by€testator,€Ð Ô$  Ðð ðindividually€and€through€his€power€of€attorney,€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô.ðð׃#×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€motion€asserted€that€noÐ À  Ðconservator€was€necessary€because€the€testator€was€capable€of€managing€his€affairs.€€The€motion€alsoÐ ¬ü  Ðstated€that€testator€had€on€November€27,€1989,€visited€Dr.€Wells€for€an€examination€of€his€cognitiveÐ ˜è  Ðfunctions€and€mental€capacity.€€The€results€of€that€examination€were€set€forth€in€a€filed€deposition.€Ð „Ô  ÐThe€motion€also€asserted€that€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€talked€with€testator€on€a€daily€basis€and€found€himÐ pÀ Ðcapable€of€managing€his€own€affairs.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àSubsequently,€the€parties€agreed€to€an€independent€psychological€examination,€and€the€courtÐ 4„ Ðentered€an€agreed€order€appointing€Dr.€Pamela€Ô_ÔAubleÔ_Ô€to€conduct€ð ðan€independent€geriatricÐ  p Ðphysiological€testðð€and€make€her€findings€available€to€counsel.€€That€examination€was€ordered€to€beÐ  \ Ðheld€April€11,€1990,€and€was€so€held.€€The€date€is€significant€because€of€its€proximity€to€theÐ øH Ðexecution€of€the€codicil€at€issue€herein.Ô#†XðXXXðÀf#Ô€€At€trial,€Dr.€Ô_ÔAubleÔ_Ô€testified€that€in€her€opinion,€the€testatorÐ ä4 Ðwas€not€able€to€manage€his€affairs€on€April€11,€1990.€€She€also€testified€that€a€person€who€sufferedÐ Ð  Ðfrom€his€problems€would€be€easily€manipulated.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€testing€revealed€ð ðmild€intellectual€impairment€with€more€moderate€compromise€in€newÐ ”ä Ðlearning€and€mental€flexibility.ðð€€His€verbal€IQ€fell€near€the€bottom€of€borderline€retarded€for€his€age.€Ð €Ð ÐFor€example,€despite€what€the€doctor€characterized€as€a€ð ðgood€effort,ðð€the€testator€could€notÐ l¼ Ðremember€two€sentences€after€five€minutes.€€He€could€not€recall€the€year€of€his€birth€or€the€name€ofÐ X ¨ Ðthe€vice€president.€€Nor€could€he€remember€the€ages€of€his€children€or€the€number€or€sex€of€hisÐ D!” Ðgrandchildren.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔAubleÔ_Ô€stated€that€she€predicted€that€his€intelligence€previously€had€been€in€theÐ 0"€  Ðhigh€average€to€superior€range.€€Ð #l! ÐÔ‡XðXXXðÔÌà  àThe€conservatorship€proceeding€was€finally€resolved€by€entry€of€an€order€on€February€8,Ð ô$D # Ðâ â1991,€reflecting€that€all€parties€agreed€that€the€testator€was,€at€that€time,€in€need€of€a€conservator€toÐ à%0!$ Ðmanage€his€affairs€and€that€he€was€incompetent€to€do€so€himself.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€court€appointed€Ô#†XðXXXð4q#ÔPhilip€K.Ð ° Ðâ âÔ_ÔBaddourÔ_Ô,€a€certified€public€accountant,€as€the€conservator.Ô‡XðXXXðÔ€€Ô#†XðXXXð£s#ÔThe€conservator€continued€to€draw€51%Ð œì Ðof€the€profits€from€the€lumber€yard€for€the€testatorððs€benefit.€€The€conservator€filed€an€annualÐ ˆØ Ðaccounting€with€the€court€until€the€testatorððs€death€in€1998.Ô‡XðXXXðÔÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€final€agreed€order€in€the€conservatorship€proceeding€also€stated:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àThe€Restraining€Order€heretofore€issued€on€October€26,€1989,€in€this€cause€againstÐ $ t ÐRobert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€be€and€the€same€is€hereby€dissolved,€the€restrictions€imposed€in€saidÐ  ` ÐOrder€against€all€parties€named€therein€are€lifted,€and€the€obligations€of€Linda€DaleÐ ü L  Ðand€Terry€Dale€as€principal€and€surety€on€the€bond€are€discharged€in€full.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€record€before€us€does€not€include€a€copy€of€the€referenced€restraining€order,€but€theÐ À  Ðoriginal€petition€requested€that€a€restraining€order€be€issued€against€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€ð ðprohibiting€himÐ ¬ü  Ðfrom€using€the€power€of€attorney€given€to€him€by€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€in€any€manner€and€specifically€fromÐ ˜è  Ðgaining€access€to€the€financial€records€of€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô,€individually€or€as€partner€of€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_ÔÐ „Ô  Ðand€Dale€until€a€hearing€in€this€cause.ððÐ pÀ ÐÌÔ#†XðXXXðÙt#Ôà  àAt€trial,€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€explained€that€he€eventually€agreed€to€the€conservatorship€becauseÐ H˜ Ðhe€concluded€that€if€the€parties€selected€the€right€conservator€his€fatherððs€affairs€would€be€managedÐ 4„ Ðwell,€that€his€father€had€sufficient€resources€to€take€care€of€his€needs,€and€because€Robert€was€at€thatÐ  p Ðpoint€unable€to€continue€to€spend€money€fighting€the€conservatorship.€€ð ðI€went€back€to€Dad€and€toldÐ  \ Ðhim€that€nothing€was€going€to€change,€we€werenððt€going€to€be€putting€him€out,€wasnððt€going€to€putÐ øH Ðhim€away€or€anything€to€that€extent.ðð€€Ð ä4 ÐÌÓ  ÓB.€October€1989€through€April€1990Ð ¼  ÐÓB}ÓÌà  àWhile€the€testator€was€living€in€the€nursing€home,€Mr.€Wayne€Baker€was€hired€in€1989€to€sitÐ ”ä Ðwith€him.€€Mr.€Bakerððs€wife€previously€cared€for€the€testatorððs€wife€for€some€time.€€Although€theÐ €Ð Ðparties€apparently€dispute€who€actually€hired€Mr.€Baker,€Mr.€Baker€testified€that€it€was€RobertÐ l¼ ÐÔ_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€who€asked€him€to€care€for€his€father.€€Mr.€Baker€described€the€testatorððs€condition€whenÐ X ¨ Ðhe€first€started€sitting€with€him.€€He€stated€that€the€testatorððs€condition€deteriorated€during€the€firstÐ D!” Ðthree€or€four€months€to€the€point€where€he€was€unable€to€feed€himself,€shower€himself,€get€in€bedÐ 0"€  Ðby€himself,€or€get€around€by€himself.€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àMr.€Baker€further€testified€that€the€testatorððs€condition€improved€after€his€medications€wereÐ ô$D # Ðgradually€adjusted€and€eventually€he€wanted€to€go€home.€€According€to€Mr.€Baker,€the€testatorÐ à%0!$ Ðbelieved€that€Linda€Dale€would€not€allow€that.€€Mr.€Baker€helped€the€testator€contact€his€attorney,Ð Ì&"% ÐHowell€Forrester,€who€assisted€the€testator€in€changing€his€power€of€attorney€to€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô.€Ð ¸'#& ÐSometime€after€this€change,€Mr.€Baker€and€the€testator€attempted€to€leave€the€nursing€home,€butÐ ¤(ô#' ÐLinda€Dale€and€her€daughter(s)€talked€the€testator€into€staying.€€Mr.€Baker€also€stated€that€the€testatorÐ ° Ðstayed€in€part€because€he€ð ðreally€didnððt€want€to€leaveðð€his€wife,€who€was€still€in€the€nursing€home.Ð œì ÐÌà  àOn€January€31,€1990,€while€the€petition€for€appointment€of€a€conservator€was€pending,€theÐ tÄ Ðtestator€checked€himself€out€of€the€nursing€home.€€He€moved€back€to€his€home€with€Mr.€Baker.Ð `° ÐWhen€the€testator€returned€home,€Mr.€Baker€lived€with€him€full„time.€€According€to€Linda€Dale,€atÐ L œ Ðthat€point:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àDaddy€was€able€to€feed€himself.€€He€wasnððt€able€to€dress€himself,€bathe€himself.€€HeÐ  ` Ðhad€to€have€help.€€He€was€confused€most€of€the€time,€you€know,€that€he€was€goingÐ ü L  Ðto€be€late€for€work€or€he€was€going€to€be€laid€off€or€be€left,€or€he€was€afraid€that€heÐ è 8  Ðwasnððt€at€home.€€He€wanted€to€be€sure€and€go€home.€€And€he€thought€that€he€wasnððtÐ Ô$  Ðat€his€home,€of€course,€and€he€wanted€to€pack€a€lot,€and€put€all€his€belongingsÐ À  Ðtogether€because€whoever€owned€the€home€was€going€to€make€him€move.€€He€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðjust€confused.€.€.€.€€He€visited€Mother€four€or€five€times€a€day,€I€guess.€€Basically,€weÐ ˜è  Ðwould€take€him€over€there,€but€like€I€say,€he€wouldnððt€stay€but€a€minute.€.€.€he€wouldÐ „Ô  Ðnever€sit€down.€€He€would€give€Mother€something€to€drink.€€Most€of€the€time€heÐ pÀ Ðbrought€her€bananas,€and€she€got€tired€of€bananas.€.€.€.€He€wouldnððt€sit€down.€€HeÐ \¬ Ðwould€just€say€a€word€or€two,€and€then€heððd€leave.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€record€shows€that€for€a€time€the€testator€was€fairly€active€after€he€returned€home.€€Mr.Ð  p ÐBaker€testified€that€the€testator€visited€his€wife€at€least€twice€a€day,€ate€most€of€his€meals€in€localÐ  \ Ðrestaurants,€began€attending€Lionððs€Club€meetings€and€church.€€According€to€Mr.€Baker,€by€1990,Ð øH Ðthe€testator€was€able€to€bathe,€dress,€and€shave€himself.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àLinda€Daleððs€daughter,€Brenda€Davis,€testified€that€she€visited€her€grandfather€daily€fromÐ ¼  ÐFebruary€to€August€of€1990.€€She€recalled€that:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àHe€was€disoriented,€confused.€€He€didnððt€know€relative€facts€about€current€events.€Ð €Ð ÐHe€was€just€„„€he€was€like€a€child,€in€a€way.€€I€guess€that€would€be€the€best€way€forÐ l¼ Ðme€to€tell€you€how€he€was.€€He€was€not€the€grandfather€that€had€raised€me,€in€hisÐ X ¨ Ðmental€capacity,€but€he€was€still€my€grandfather€that€I€loved.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àLinda€Dale€also€visited€her€father€almost€every€day€in€the€months€after€the€testator€left€theÐ #l! Ðnursing€home,€although€she€realized€that€her€father€was€upset€with€her€because€she€had€wanted€toÐ $X" Ðkeep€him€in€the€nursing€home.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àLinda€Dale€testified€that€Mr.€Baker€took€the€testator€to€visit€Robert€Brindley,€ð ðbut€RobertÐ Ì&"% Ðdidnððt€come€by€very€often€to€see€[his€father].ðð€€Both€Mr.€Baker€and€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€also€testified€that€Ð ¸'#& ÐMr.€Baker€would€often€take€the€testator€to€see€Robert€at€his€office.€€Ô‡XðXXXðÔAccording€to€Mr.€Baker,€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtestator€often€stated€he€wanted€to€talk€to€Robert€about€some€particular€matter.Ô#†XðXXXðó#ÔÐ )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àAccording€to€Robert€Brindley,€the€person€who€really€took€care€of€the€day„to„day€needs€of€hisÐ ° Ðâ âmother€and€father€was€Linda€Dale,€who€saw€them€every€day,€made€sure€their€needs€were€met,€etc.Ð œì ÐMr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€testified€that€he€went€to€see€his€father€ð ða€whole€lotðð€while€he€was€in€the€nursing€home.€Ð ˆØ ÐHowever,€he€admitted€that€initially€he€didnððt€realize€his€father€had€been€put€in€the€nursing€Ô_ÔhomeÔ_ÔÐ tÄ Ðbecause€he€had€been€out€of€town.€€He€also€testified€that€from€1985€to€1992,€ð ðI€would€see€him,€IÐ `° Ðwould€imagine,€once€a€month€would€be€about€it,€or€maybe€twice€a€month€for€a€period€of€time.€€In€theÐ L œ Ðlatter€years€[until€the€testatorððs€death€in€1998]€I€saw€him€less€frequently.ðð€€Although€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_ÔÐ 8 ˆ Ðtestified€he€visited€his€father€once€or€twice€a€month€during€the€relevant€time€period,€he€alsoÐ $ t Ðacknowledged€that€his€father€would€frequently€drop€by€his€office.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àRobert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€accompanied€his€father€to€the€court„ordered€examination€by€Dr.€Ô_ÔAubleÔ_Ô€onÐ è 8  ÐApril€11,€1990.€€According€to€Mr.€Brindley,€his€father€was€ð ðextremely€angry,€extremely€upsetðð€aboutÐ Ô$  Ðthe€prospect€of€the€examination.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔAubleÔ_Ôððs€tests€showed,€in€addition€to€the€results€discussed€above,€Ð À  Ðthat€the€testator€was€moderately€depressed.€€According€to€the€doctorððs€report,€the€testator€reportedÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€he€was€afraid€of€his€children€not€getting€along€after€his€death€and€stated€that€he€would€be€happierÐ ˜è  Ðif€ð ðI€could€leave€my€will€for€my€children€evenly.ðð€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àDr.€Ô_ÔAubleÔ_Ôððs€report€stated€that:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àwith€his€poor€memory,€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€would€have€great€difficulty€managing€day€to€dayÐ 4„ Ðbusiness€transactions.€€He€does€appear€to€have€a€good€general€grasp€of€his€situation,Ð  p Ðbut€I€do€not€think€that€he€can€be€counted€on€for€accurate€recall€of€details.€€So€far,€theÐ  \ Ðcourse€of€his€disease€does€not€resemble€Alzheimerððs€in€that€he€has€apparentlyÐ øH Ðimproved€over€the€past€year€or€so.€€It€is€possible€that€this€was€due€to€over„medicationÐ ä4 Ðor€something€of€that€nature€last€year,€and€that€now€there€will€start€to€be€a€decline€inÐ Ð  Ðfunctioning.€€Another€possibility€which€could€cause€this€pattern€of€deficits€might€beÐ ¼  Ðmulti„infarct€dementia.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€report€also€stated:Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àAccording€to€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ôððs€son€[Robert],€his€sister€and€her€husband€have€takenÐ X ¨ Ðmoney€from€his€fatherððs€accounts€at€the€lumber€business€which€S.W.€Brindley€ownsÐ D!” Ðjointly€with€his€daughter.€€He€said€that€was€why€Linda€Dale€wants€Mr.€BrindleyÐ 0"€  Ðdeclared€incompetent.€€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€[the€testator]€told€me€that€one€man€had€beenÐ #l! Ðsold€$370,000€worth€on€credit€though€he€had€not€paid€his€bills€in€the€past,€and€thatÐ $X" Ðmoney€had€been€taken€out€of€his€savings€without€his€knowledge€and€put€into€theÐ ô$D # Ðlumber€business.€€He€said€that€money€from€his€savings€had€been€used€for€the€lumberÐ à%0!$ Ðbusiness€before,€but€that€he€had€known€about€it€in€advance.€€Linda€Dale€reported€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€lumber€business€does€owe€her€father€money,€but€that€it€was€historically€commonÐ ¸'#& Ðto€do€this€in€that€business€and€that€the€debts€were€recorded€in€the€books.€€She€saidÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€she€had€not€stolen€money€from€her€father.Ð)à$(Ð Ð  Ðâ âÓ  ÓÐ |*Ì%) ÐÓC¢ÓÓ  Óà  àBoth€Linda€Dale€and€her€daughter,€Brenda,€testified€that€the€testator€never€read€anythingÐ ° Ðâ âafter€his€second€surgery.€€The€record€shows€that€the€testatorððs€sight€had€deteriorated,€although€heÐ œì Ðhad€been€an€avid€reader€before€his€illness.€€Mrs.€Dale€also€testified€that€her€father€was€unable€toÐ ˆØ Ðconduct€any€business€after€the€1988€surgery€and€hospitalization.Ð tÄ ÐÌà@ ìàC.€€The€Final€CodicilˆÐ L œ ÐÌÔ‡XðXXXðÔÓ  Óà  àAccording€to€Mr.€Baker,€in€April€of€1990,€which€would€have€been€around€the€time€of€Dr.Ð $ t ÐÔ_ÔAubleÔ_Ôððs€examination,€€the€testator€wanted€to€go€to€the€office€of€his€lawyer,€Mr.€Forrester.€€TheÐ  ` Ðtestator€told€Mr.€Baker€he€was€going€to€have€his€will€changed.€€Although€Mr.€Baker€was€presentÐ ü L  Ðduring€the€meeting€between€the€testator€and€his€attorney,€he€could€not€recall€any€specific€parts€of€theÐ è 8  Ðdiscussion.€€According€to€Mr.€Baker,€after€the€testator€told€Mr.€Forrester€how€he€wanted€the€willÐ Ô$  Ðwritten,€Mr.€Baker€and€the€testator€left.Ð À  ÐÌà  àA€few€days€later€they€returned€to€the€attorneyððs€office€to€pick€up€the€will.€€Mr.€Forrester€€wentÐ ˜è  Ðover€the€will€with€the€testator.€€Although€Mr.€Baker€did€not€know€the€specifics€of€the€conversation,Ð „Ô  Ðhe€testified€that€the€testator€did€not€express€any€dissatisfaction€with€the€will€at€that€point.€€They€leftÐ pÀ Ðwith€a€copy€of€the€will,€and€the€testator€wanted€to€go€to€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ôððs€office.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àMr.€Baker€and€the€testator€went€straight€to€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ôððs€office€from€the€lawyerððs€office.€Ð 4„ ÐMr.€Baker€testified,€ð ðWell,€when€we€walked€in€and€everything,€you€know,€he€told€Robert€that€heÐ  p Ðwanted€him€to€read€the€will.ðð€€The€testator€handed€the€document€to€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô,€who€read€theÐ  \ Ðwill€out€loud€to€the€testator.€€The€testator€then€said,€ð ðNo.€Thatððs€not€how€I€want€it.ðð€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àAccording€to€Mr.€Baker,€he€and€the€testator€then€returned€immediately€to€the€attorneyððsÐ Ð  Ðoffice,€where€the€testator€told€the€attorney€how€he€wanted€the€will€written.€€Mr.€Forrester€replied€thatÐ ¼  Ðhe€would€change€the€will€and€the€testator€could€pick€it€up€later.€€Several€days€later€Mr.€Baker€tookÐ ¨ø Ðthe€testator€to€the€attorneyððs€office,€Mr.€Forrester€read€the€will€to€the€testator,€and€they€executed€it.€Ð ”ä ÐMr.€Baker€did€not€remember€if€they€then€took€a€copy€of€the€will€to€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àMr.€Forrester,€the€attorney,€recalled€that€he€went,€at€the€testatorððs€request,€to€the€nursing€homeÐ X ¨ Ðfor€the€first€discussion€about€changing€the€will.€€Mr.€Forrester€was€unable€to€recall€any€specificÐ D!” Ðevents€surrounding€the€execution,€but€was€certain€that€the€same€procedure€was€followed€as€with€allÐ 0"€  Ðother€wills€he€drafted.€€He€identified€his€signature€and€that€of€his€secretary€as€witnesses.€€He€testifiedÐ #l! Ðthat€the€testator€understood€the€codicil€and€understood€that€it€would€be€effective€only€if€his€wifeÐ $X" Ðpredeceased€him,€a€condition€which€is€reflected€on€the€document€itself.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àMr.€Forrester€did€not€mention€the€other€visits€to€his€office,€as€described€by€Mr.€Baker,€or€theÐ Ì&"% Ðrevision€after€the€first€draft.€€He€did€not€testify€that€he€gave€any€advice€to€the€testator.€€He€stated€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€kept€the€codicil€in€his€safe€until€the€testatorððs€death€and€told€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€about€it€at€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtestatorððs€funeral.€€He€testified€that€Robert€said€he€would€tell€his€sister€about€it.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐÔ#†XðXXXð‹¤#Ôà  àThe€testator€executed€the€codicil׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€at€issue€on€April€19,€1990.€€The€parties€do€not€dispute€thatÐ ° Ðâ âit€was€duly€executed.€€In€addition€to€making€Linda€Dale€and€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€co„executors,€theÐ œì Ðdocument€stated€in€pertinent€part:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àI€direct€that€my€two€(2)€children,€two„wit:€Robert€Brindley,€Sr.€and€Linda€BrindleyÐ `° ÐDale,€share€equally€in€any€and€all€of€my€property.€€This€includes€bank€accounts,€myÐ L œ Ðinterest€in€the€Brindley€and€Dale€Lumber€Company,€my€vehicles€and€all€of€myÐ 8 ˆ Ðproperty€including€residential€and€rental€property€that€I€might€own,€except€as€shownÐ $ t Ðin€the€last€paragraph€of€this€item.€€Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àI€direct€that€all€the€property€that€I€might€own€will€go€to€them€equally€and€they€canÐ è 8  Ðhave€a€public€auction,€sell€this€privately€or€divide€it€among€themselves.€€If€they€canÐ Ô$  Ðnot€agree€then€of€course,€the€executor€will€have€the€ultimate€authority€to€sell€andÐ À  Ðdispose€of€the€property€and€divide€the€proceeds.€€Ð¬ü Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àHeretofore,€I€gave€Linda€Brindley€Dale€49%€of€Brindley€and€Dale€Lumber€Company.€Ð „Ô  ÐI€want€Robert€Brindley,€Sr.€to€have€50%€of€the€business.€€I€therefore€give€RobertÐ pÀ ÐBrindley,€Sr.€50%€and€give€Linda€Brindley€Dale€1%.€€Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àI€want€them€to€share€the€lumber€company€equally€and€each€of€my€children€will€haveÐ 4„ Ða€50%€interest€in€Brindley€and€Dale€Lumber€Company.€Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àRobert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€later€testified,€ð ðI€had€nothing€to€do€with€that€will.ðð€€He€claimed€noÐ øH Ðrecollection€of€the€incident€described€by€Mr.€Baker€when€the€testator€brought€him€the€proposedÐ ä4 Ðcodicil.€€He€was€unsure€whether€he€received€a€copy€of€the€final€codicil€prior€to€his€fatherððs€death.Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ  ÓD.€€Events€After€Execution€of€the€CodicilÐ ¨ø ÐÓ×»ÓÌà  àAfter€reviewing€her€diary,€Brenda€Davis,€recalled€visiting€her€grandfather€on€April€19,€1990.€Ð €Ð ÐAccording€to€Ms.€Davis,€her€grandfather€usually€followed€a€predictable€routine:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àUsually,€it€was,€get€up,€Mr.€Baker,€he€would€have€to€get€him€ready€and€everything,Ð D!” Ðand€he€would€feed€him,€and€then€he€loved€to€ride€in€the€pickup€when€he€was€able.€Ð 0"€  ÐSo€Mr.€Baker€would€ride€him€around,€and€he€would€bring€him€down€to€the€office€toÐ #l! Ðvisit€my€mother,€and€he€would€visit€us€sometimes,€like€that,€and€then€he€would€goÐ $X" Ðriding€around€again,€and€they€would€go€eat,€then€usually€they€went€back€home,€youÐ ô$D # Ðknow,€in€the€afternoon.€€So€he€would€get€out€a€whole,€whole€lot,€but€he€would€be€inÐ à%0!$ Ðand€out€like€that.€€And€he€was,€you€know,€just€riding,€usually.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àOn€April€19,€however,€the€testator€was€not€home€in€the€afternoon€and€Ms.€Davis€wentÐ ° Ðâ âlooking€for€him€at€the€nursing€home.€€According€to€Ms.€Davis,€when€she€finally€caught€up€with€himÐ œì Ðat€home,€she€asked€him€what€he€had€been€doing€and€he€said€he€didnððt€remember€and€denied€goingÐ ˆØ Ðanywhere€that€afternoon.€€He€appeared€agitated.€€The€April€19€entry€in€Ms.€Davisððs€diary€stated:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àI€went€by€the€house€to€see€Pawpaw,€and€Mr.€Baker€and€him€were€gone.€€And€I€wentÐ L œ Ðto€the€nursing€home,€and€the€sitter€said€that€he€had€been€by,€but€that€Robert€and€Mr.Ð 8 ˆ ÐBaker€had€taken€him€somewhere.€€Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àI€found€out€that€they€had€went€to€see€Mr.€Forrester,€but€when€I€asked€Pawpaw,€heÐ ü L  Ðdidnððt€even€remember€going€to€see€Mawmaw€or€anything.€€He€was€confused,€so€IÐ è 8  Ðdropped€it.€€Pawpaw€said€he€had€to€go€pick€up€Mawmaw€by€helicopter€because€theyÐ Ô$  Ðwere€on€a€hill,€and€it€would€take€them€to€Pulaski€which€was€1,000€miles€away.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àMs.€Davis€testified€that€at€no€time€after€April€19,€did€her€grandfather€appear€ð ðnormal.ðð€€NorÐ ˜è  Ðdid€she€think€that€he€could€ð ðfoolðð€someone€ð ðinto€thinking€he€knew€what€he€was€talking€aboutððÐ „Ô  Ðbecause€he€was€unable€to€carry€on€a€conversation.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àMrs.€Edna€Brindley€died€in€April€of€1994.€€In€that€same€year,€Mr.€Baker€also€stopped€caringÐ H˜ Ðfor€the€testator€because€the€testator€gradually€started€deteriorating,€losing€his€memory,€and€sometimesÐ 4„ Ðneeded€to€be€restrained€or€quieted.€€After€Mr.€Baker€stopped€caring€for€the€testator,€he€began€workingÐ  p Ðat€Robert€Brindleyððs€construction€company,€where€he€worked€for€a€couple€of€years.€€Mr.€BakerÐ  \ Ðtestified€that€he€took€snapshots€and€videotaped€construction€sites.€€He€testified€that,€ð ðIf€I€wasnððtÐ øH Ðdoing€that,€I€was€there€in€the€office€doing€„„€just€running€fans€and€doing€general€things€there€in€theÐ ä4 Ðoffice.€€And€I€handled€maintenance€on€the€vehicles.ðð€€In€contrast,€Robert€Brindley€testified:Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à.€.€.€when€Daddy€had€deteriorated€a€great€deal,€I€gave€Mr.€Baker€a€job€to€look€after€theÐ ¨ø Ðtools€and€to€check€tools€out€in€the€morning.€It€was€a€part„time€job€and€such.€€And,Ð ”ä Ðyes,€Mr.€Baker€worked€for€me€for€a€short€period€of€time€over€a€period€of€two€or€threeÐ €Ð Ðyears,€I€think,€in€checking€out€tools€and€such€because€I€was€always€very€grateful€forÐ l¼ Ðthe€way€he€had€took€care€of€my€father.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€testator€died€on€July€30,€1998.€€Linda€Dale€did€not€see€the€April€1990€codicil€until€it€wasÐ 0"€  Ðmailed€to€her€after€his€death.€€She€filed€the€underlying€petition€for€letters€testamentary€in€which€sheÐ #l! Ðrequested€that€the€will€and€the€first€two׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€codicils€be€admitted€into€probate€and€that€the€courtÐ $X" Ðdetermine€the€validity€of€the€final€codicil.€€In€September,€Robert€Brindley€filed€a€petition€forÐ ô$D # Ðsubstitution€of€executor,€requesting€the€court€appoint€himself€as€executor,€on€the€ground€that€he€didÐ à%0!$ Ðnot€contest€the€validity€of€the€final€codicil.€€The€case€was€transferred€to€Circuit€Court€and€tried€to€aÐ Ì&"% Ðjury.Ð ¸'#& Ðâ âÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àAt€trial,€both€parties€testified€at€length.€€Linda€Dale€also€offered,€òòinter€alia,óó€the€testimony€ofÐ ° Ðâ âthe€testatorððs€psychiatrist€at€St.€Thomas€Hospital,€Dr.€Treadway,€who€testified€that€he€spentÐ œì Ðapproximately€twenty„five€hours€examining€and€treating€the€testator.€€His€findings€indicated€theÐ ˆØ Ðtestator€had€substantial€memory€impairment.€€The€doctor€testified€that€he€was€ð ðabsolutely€certainððÐ tÄ Ðthat€the€testator€was€suffering€from€dementia,€ð ðwhich€means€permanent€impairment€of€the€brainÐ `° Ðfunctionsðð€with€no€cure€ð ðof€any€kind.ðð€€He€testified:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àIððm€100€%€sure€that€he€had€dementia.€€Can€I€be€sure€that€he€had€Alzheimerððs€disease?Ð $ t ÐNo.€€Itððs€possible€that€there€were€strokes€that€didnððt€show€up€on€the€x„rays.€€But€IððmÐ  ` Ð90%€sure€that€he€had€Alzheimerððs€disease.€€That€is€as€sure€as€you€can€be€without€anÐ ü L  Ðautopsy,€which€was€not€obtained€in€this€case.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àDr.€Auble€testified€that€in€her€opinion,€the€testator€was€not€able€to€manage€his€affairs€on€AprilÐ À  Ð11,€1990.€€She€also€testified€that€a€person€who€suffered€from€his€problems€would€be€easilyÐ ¬ü  Ðmanipulated.€€She€stated:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àIn€Mr.€Brindleyððs€case€especially,€I€think,€because€it€was€important€for€Mr.€BrindleyÐ pÀ Ðto€appear€that€he€had€a€grip€on€the€situation.€€He€wanted€to€look€like€he€really€knew€Ð \¬ Ðwhat€was€going€on€and€sometimes€that€makes€people€„„€€itððs€easier€to€manipulateÐ H˜ Ðthem€because€you€can€say€to€them,€ððAs€you€remember,ðð€and,€you€know,€they€reallyÐ 4„ Ðdonððt€remember,€but€theyððll€say,€ððOh€yeah.€€Yeah.€€I€remember.ðð€And€so€it€would€be.€Ð  p ÐI€can€see€how€it€would€be€easy€to€manipulate€him€because€he€really€didnððt€have€muchÐ  \ Ðday„to„day€memory.€€He€really€was€trying€to€pass€a€lot€where€he€had€a€good€visage,Ð øH Ða€good€appearance,€that€he€wanted€to€appear€that€he€knew€what€was€going€on€andÐ ä4 Ðdidnððt€want€to€say,€ððwell,€you€know,€in€fact,€I€donððt€have€any€idea€what€youððre€talkingÐ Ð  Ðabout.ðð€€He€would€just€try€to€get€along.€€Just€like€when€I€asked€him€the€ages€of€hisÐ ¼  Ðchildren.€€I€donððt€think€he€knew,€but€he€didnððt€tell€me€he€didnððt€know.€€He€just€createdÐ ¨ø Ðsome€ages€that€maybe€sounded€reasonable.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àDr.€Auble€agreed€that,€ð ðIf€you€didnððt€know€Mr.€Brindley,€truly€know€him,€and€know€theÐ l¼ Ðhistory€of€his€life€and€his€children€and€so€on,€.€.€.€[he€could]€carry€on€a€conversation€that€would€foolÐ X ¨ Ðyou€into€thinking€he€did€know€what€he€was€talking€aboutðð€but€only€ð ðif€you€didnððt€drill€him.€€YouÐ D!” Ðknow,€like€if€you€saw€him€in€Krogerððs.ððÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àRobert€Brindley€introduced€the€testimony€of€Stacy€Garner,€his€fatherððs€dentist€and€friend.€Ð $X" ÐDr.€Garner€testified€that€during€a€dental€appointment€in€April€1990,€the€testator€was€competent.Ð ô$D # ÐHowever,€Dr.€Garner€could€not€remember€what€they€discussed€and€did€not€observe€the€testator€eitherÐ à%0!$ Ðreading€or€writing.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àMr.€Brindley€also€offered€the€deposition€testimony€of€Dr.€Wells,€who€had€examined€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtestator€on€November€27,€1989,€as€part€of€the€testatorððs€and€Robert€Brindleyððs€efforts€to€fight€theÐ )à$( Ðappointment€of€a€conservator.€€At€that€time,€Dr.€Wells€concluded€that€there€was€no€evidence€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðserious€impairment€in€his€memory€or€other€cognitive€functions.€€Dr.€Wells€examined€the€testatorÐ h+¸&* Ðagain€on€April€26,€1990,€just€days€after€the€final€codicil€was€executed,€and€his€opinion€had€notÐ ° Ðchanged.€€Dr.€Wells€testified€that€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€was€directly€involved€in€having€him€evaluate€theÐ œì Ðtestator.€€Dr.€Wells€admitted€that€after€examining€the€testator€in€December€1990,€he€determined€thatÐ ˆØ Ðit€was€appropriate€for€a€conservator€to€be€appointed€for€him.Ð tÄ ÐÌà@«« ìàIII.€€Undue€InfluenceˆÐ L œ ÐÌà  àMr.€Brindley€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€for€directed€verdict€onÐ $ t Ðthe€issue€of€undue€influence.€€He€maintains€that€Linda€Dale€failed€to€satisfy€her€burden€of€providingÐ  ` Ðeither€direct€or€circumstantial€evidence€of€undue€influence€which,€he€contends,€€consists€of€provingÐ ü L  Ðboth€the€existence€of€a€confidential€relationship€between€him€and€the€testator€and€additionalÐ è 8  Ðsuspicious€circumstances€that€justify€invalidating€the€will€or€codicil.€€He€asserts€there€was€no€proofÐ Ô$  Ðthat€he€enjoyed€a€ð ðconfidential€relationship,ðð€as€that€term€is€defined€in€the€law€of€undue€influence,Ð À  Ðwith€his€father.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àUndue€influence€ð ðupon€a€testator€consists€in€substituting€the€will€of€the€person€exercising€itÐ „Ô  Ðfor€that€of€the€testator.ðð€€1€òòJack€W.€Robinson,€Sr.€&€Jeff€Ô_ÔMobleyÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔPritchardÔ_Ô€on€the€Law€ofÐ pÀ ÐWills€and€the€Administration€of€Estatesóó€ðð€124,€at€203€Ô‡XðXXXðÔ(5th€ed.€1994)Ô#†XðXXXðéä#Ô.€€The€essential€issue€onÐ \¬ Ða€question€of€undue€influence€is€whether€ð ðthe€will€is€the€will€of€the€testator€or€that€of€another.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ H˜ Ðat€ðð€130,€at€210.€€A€valid€will€is€the€product€of€the€free€exercise€of€independent€judgment€by€a€personÐ 4„ Ðwho€has€the€mental€capacity€to€make€a€testamentary€disposition.€€òòIn€re€Estate€of€Elamóó,€738€S.W.2dÐ  p Ð169,€171€(Tenn.€1987).€€òòóóThus,€undue€influence€exists€where€the€free€agency€of€a€testator€is€destroyedÐ  \ Ðto€the€extent€that€the€will,€though€nominally€the€testatorððs€own,€is€in€reality€that€of€another.€Ð øH ÐòòÔ_ÔTaliaferroÔ_Ô€v.€Greenóó,€622€S.W.2d€829,€837€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981),€òòoverruled€on€other€grounds€byÐ ä4 ÐÔ_ÔMatlockÔ_Ô€v.€Simpsonóó,€902€S.W.2d€384,€386€(Tenn.€1995).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAs€a€general€rule,€it€is€presumed€that€undue€influence€does€not€enter€into€the€making€of€a€will,Ð ¨ø Ðor€other€conveyance,€and€the€burden€of€proving€undue€influence€falls€upon€the€person€contesting€theÐ ”ä Ðdocument.òò€€Hammond€v.€Union€Planters€Ô_ÔNatððlÔ_Ô€Bankóó,€189€Tenn.€93,€109,€222€S.W.2d€217,€383„84Ð €Ð Ð(1949).€€Thus,€proof€of€due€execution€shifts€the€burden€of€going€forward€to€the€contestants€to€proveÐ l¼ Ðthat€the€testator€was€unduly€influenced€in€making€his€or€her€will.€€òòIn€re€Estate€of€Elamóó,€738€S.W.2dÐ X ¨ Ðat€173;€òòOwen€v.€Stanleyóó,€739€S.W.2d€782,€787€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987),€òòoverruled€on€other€groundsÐ D!” Ðby€Ô_ÔMatlockÔ_Ôóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€386€n.10.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àParties€opposing€a€will€may€carry€their€burden€of€proving€that€the€testator€was€undulyÐ $X" Ðinfluenced€by€proving€the€existence€of€suspicious€circumstances€warranting€a€conclusion€that€the€willÐ ô$D # Ðwas€not€the€testatorððs€free€and€independent€act.€òò€Mitchell€v.€Smithóó,€779€S.W.2d€384,€388€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð à%0!$ ÐApp.€1989);€òòÔ_ÔTaliaferroÔ_Ôóó,€622€S.W.2d€at€835„36.€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà8  àWhile€undue€influence€can€be€proved€either€by€direct€or€circumstantial€evidence,òò€seeÐ ¤(ô#' ÐIn€re€Depriestððs€Estateóó,€733€S.W.2d€74,€78€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986)€(direct€evidence);Ð )à$( ÐòòPatton€v.€Allisonóó,€26€Tenn.€(7€Humph.)€320,€333€(1846)€(circumstantial€evidence),€Ð |*Ì%) Ðdirect€evidence€is€rarely€available.€òò€Hager€v.€Hageróó,€17€Tenn.€App.€143,€161,€66Ð h+¸&* ÐS.W.2d€250,€260€(1933).€€Thus,€in€most€cases,€those€attacking€a€conveyance€or€willÐ ° Ðon€the€grounds€of€undue€influence€must€prove€the€existence€of€suspiciousÐ œì Ðcircumstances€warranting€the€conclusion€that€the€person€allegedly€influenced€did€notÐ ˆØ Ðact€freely€and€independently.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌòòFell€v.€Ramboóó,€36€S.W.3d€837,€847€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000)€(citations€omitted).€€Without€directÐ L œ Ðevidence€of€undue€influence,€persons€contesting€a€will€must€prove€the€existence€of€more€than€oneÐ 8 ˆ Ðsuspicious€circumstance€in€order€to€succeed.€òòóó€òòHalle€v.€Ô_ÔSummerfieldÔ_Ôóó,€199€Tenn.€444,€455,€287€S.W.2dÐ $ t Ð57,€61€(1956).Ð  ` ÐÌòòóóà  àWhether€the€circumstances€relied€upon€by€the€party€contesting€the€will€are€sufficient€toÐ è 8  Ðinvalidate€the€will€should€be€decided€ð ðby€application€of€sound€principles€and€good€sense€to€the€factsÐ Ô$  Ðof€each€case.ððòò€€Halleóó,€199€Tenn.€at€454,€287€S.W.2d€at€61.€€The€range€of€facts€which€may€be€relevantÐ À  Ðto€the€question€of€whether€suspicious€circumstances€exist€is€very€broad.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àIt€is€generally€held€that€upon€such€issues€every€fact€and€circumstance,€no€matter€howÐ „Ô  Ðlittle€its€probative€value,€which€throws€light€upon€these€issues,€is€admissible.€€TheÐ pÀ Ðrange€of€inquiry€may€cover,€not€only€the€provisions€of€the€will€itself,€and€theÐ \¬ Ðcircumstances€surrounding€its€execution,€but€also€the€mental€condition€of€the€testator,Ð H˜ Ðthe€motive€and€opportunity€of€others€to€influence€him€unduly,€his€relations€withÐ 4„ Ðpersons€benefitted€by€or€excluded€from€the€will,€and€the€acts€and€declarations€of€suchÐ  p Ðpersons.€€Although€none€of€these€matters€standing€alone€may€be€sufficient€toÐ  \ Ðestablish€the€issues,€yet€taken€together€they€may€have€that€effect.€òòóóÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌòòMitchellóó,€779€S.W.2d€at€388€(quoting€òòÔ_ÔHagerÔ_Ô€v.€Hageróó,€17€Tenn.€App.€143,€161,€66€S.W.2d€250,€260Ð Ð  Ð(1933)).€€Thus,€whether€suspicious€circumstances€exist€is€a€highly€fact„specific€question.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€suspicious€circumstances€often€relied€upon€to€establish€undue€influence€are:€(1)€theÐ ”ä Ðexistence€of€a€confidential€relationship€between€the€testator€and€the€beneficiary;€(2)€the€testatorððsÐ €Ð Ðphysical€or€mental€deterioration;€and€(3)€the€beneficiaryððs€active€involvement€in€procuring€the€will.òò€Ð l¼ ÐIn€re€Estate€of€Elamóó,€738€S.W.2d€at€173;€òòKelly€v.€Allenóó,€558€S.W.2d€845,€848€(Tenn.€1977);Ð X ¨ ÐòòMitchellóó,€779€S.W.2d€at€388,€òòÔ_ÔTaliaferroÔ_Ôóó,€622€S.W.2d€at€835-36.€€òòóóOur€courts€have€recognized€otherÐ D!” Ðsuspicious€circumstances€giving€rise€to€undue€influence.€€These€include:€€(1)€secrecy€concerning€theÐ 0"€  Ðwillððs€existence;€(2)€the€testatorððs€advanced€age;€(3)€the€lack€of€independent€advice€in€preparing€theÐ #l! Ðwill;€(4)€the€testatorððs€illiteracy€or€blindness;€(5)€the€unjust€or€unnatural€nature€of€the€willððs€terms;Ð $X" Ð(6)€the€testator€being€in€an€emotionally€distraught€state;€(7)€discrepancies€between€the€will€and€theÐ ô$D # Ðtestatorððs€expressed€intentions;€and€(8)€fraud€or€duress€directed€toward€the€testator.òò€€Halleóó,€199€Tenn.Ð à%0!$ Ðat€454„57,€287€S.W.2d€at€61„62;€òòMitchellóó,€779€S.W.2d€at€671.€€Although€more€than€one€circumstanceÐ Ì&"% Ðmust€be€present,€òòóóð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€courts€have€refrained€from€prescribing€the€type€or€number€of€suspiciousÐ ¸'#& Ðcircumstances€that€will€warrant€invalidating€a€will€on€the€grounds€of€undue€influence.ðð€€òòMitchellóó,òò€óó779Ð ¤(ô#' ÐS.W.2d€at€388.Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* ЇòòóóÓ  ÓA.€Confidential€Relationships€and€Suspicious€CircumstancesÐ ° ÐÓ5ÓÌà  àMr.€Brindley€argues€that€the€only€way€to€establish€undue€influence€is€with€proof€of€aÐ ˆØ Ðconfidential€relationship€in€addition€to€at€least€one€other€suspicious€circumstance.€He€further€assertsÐ tÄ Ðthat€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€of€a€confidential€relationship€between€him€and€his€father.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àOur€courts€have€stated€that€the€existence€of€a€confidential€relationship€is€one€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðð ðsuspicious€circumstancesðð€most€frequently€relied€upon€to€show€undue€influence.òò€€Fellóó,€36€S.W.3dÐ $ t Ðat€847„48;òò€see€In€re€Estate€of€Elamóó,€738€S.W.2d€at€173;€òòKellyóó,€558€S.W.2d€at€848;€òòMitchellóó,€779Ð  ` ÐS.W.2d€at€388;€òòÔ_ÔTaliaferroÔ_Ôóó,€622€S.W.2d€at€835„36.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àA€confidential€relationship€is€not€merely€one€of€mutual€trust€and€confidence,€but€one€whereÐ Ô$  Ðconfidence€is€placed€by€one€person€in€another€and€the€recipient€of€that€confidence€is€the€dominantÐ À  Ðpersonality,€with€ability,€because€of€that€confidence,€to€influence€and€exercise€dominion€and€controlÐ ¬ü  Ðover€the€weaker€or€dominated€party.€€òòMitchellóó,€779€S.W.2d€at€389;€òòÔ_ÔIacomettiÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔFrassinelliÔ_Ôóó,€494Ð ˜è  ÐS.W.2d€496,€499€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1973).€€Confidential€relationships€may€take€a€variety€of€forms,€andÐ „Ô  Ðthe€courts€have€not€attempted€to€precisely€define€all€relationships€which€may€qualify.€€òòRobinson€v.Ð pÀ ÐRobinsonóó,€517€S.W.2d€202,€206€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1974).Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àA€confidential€relationship€may€be€found€in€a€variety€of€circumstances:€ð ðððAlthoughÐ 4„ Ðour€courts€have€not€defined€very€clearly€the€elements€which€must€be€present€for€aÐ  p Ðconfidential€relationship€to€exist,€it€appears€that€any€relation€of€confidence€betweenÐ  \ Ðpersons€which€gives€one€domination€over€the€other€falls€within€the€category.ðððð€€òòÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌBrown€v.€Weikóó,€725€S.W.2d€938,€945€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983)€(quoting€òòRobinsonóó,€517€S.W.2d€at€206).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAlthough€courts€have€been€hesitant€to€limit€the€types€of€relationships€which€might€be€foundÐ ¨ø Ðto€be€confidential,€Tennessee€courts€have€recognized€two€types€of€confidential€relationships€whichÐ ”ä Ðdiffer€in€their€creation€and€in€their€effect€on€the€burden€of€proof€as€to€undue€influence.€€A€ð ðlegalÐ €Ð Ðconfidential€relationshipðð€is€one€upon€which€the€law€imposes€fiduciary€responsibilities€or€ð ðprohibitsÐ l¼ Ðgifts€or€dealing€between€the€parties.ððòò€€Ô_ÔMatlockÔ_Ôóó,€902€S.W.2d€atòò€óó385„86€(quoting€òòKellyóó,€558€S.W.2dÐ X ¨ Ðat€848).€€These€fiduciary€relationships€are€confidential€òòper€seóó€because€of€the€legal€relationship€of€theÐ D!” Ðparties.€€Examples€include€attorney€and€client,€guardian€and€ward,€and€conservator€and€ward.ò ò€ó óProofÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€existence€of€a€ð ðlegal€confidential€relationship,ðð€coupled€with€a€transaction€beneficial€to€theÐ  #p! Ðdominant€party,€automatically€gives€rise€to€the€presumption€of€invalidity€of€the€transaction.€€òòMatlockóó,Ð  $\" Ð902€S.W.2d€at€385.€Ð ø$H # ÐÌà  àAn€unrestricted€power€of€attorney€creates€a€confidential€relationship€between€the€parties.Ð Ð& "% ÐòòMatlockóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€386€(citing€òòMitchellóó,€779€S.W.2d€at€384).€€This€court€has€held€that€proof€thatÐ ¼' #& Ða€power€of€attorney€was€executed€after€the€will€and€was€not€utilized€for€a€number€of€years€afterÐ ¨(ø#' Ðexecution€of€the€will€was€sufficient€for€the€jury€to€conclude€no€òòper€seóó€confidential€relationshipÐ ”)ä$( Ðexisted€and€no€undue€influence€was€exercised.€€òòÔ_ÔCrainÔ_Ô€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€187,€194€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð €*Ð%) ÐApp.€1991),€òòoverruled€on€other€grounds€by€Ô_ÔMatlockÔ_Ôóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€386.€€Similarly,€the€TennesseeÐ l+¼&* ÐSupreme€Court€has€recently€clarified€òòÔ_ÔMatlockÔ_Ôóó€by€holding€that€an€unexercised€power€of€attorney€doesÐ ° Ðnot€in€and€of€itself€create€a€confidential€relationship.€€òòChildress€v.€Currieóó,€74€S.W.3d€324,€329€(Tenn.Ð œì Ð2002).Ð ˆØ ÐòòóóÌà  àLinda€Dale€argues€that€Robert€Brindley€had€a€confidential€relationship€with€their€father€onceÐ `° Ðthe€testator€executed€the€power€of€attorney€to€his€son€in€September€of€1989.€€On€the€other€side,Ð L œ ÐRobert€Brindley€argues€that€the€power€of€attorney€making€him€his€fatherððs€attorney€in€fact€had€beenÐ 8 ˆ Ðrevoked€as€a€matter€of€law€by€the€appointment€of€a€guardian€ad€litem€at€the€beginning€of€theÐ $ t Ðconservatorship€proceedings.€€He€asserts€the€guardian€ad€litem€provided€the€testator€with€a€weeklyÐ  ` Ðallowance€and€handled€the€testatorððs€financial€affairs.€€Therefore,€Mr.€Brindley€asserts,€he€had€noÐ ü L  Ðcontrol€over€the€testatorððs€financial€affairs€at€the€time€the€codicil€was€signed.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€record€reflects€that€Robert€Brindley€attempted€to€exercise€the€power€of€attorney€at€leastÐ À  Ðtwice:€(1)€in€requesting€an€audit€or€records€of€the€lumber€yard€business;€and€(2)€in€answering€theÐ ¬ü  Ðpetition€for€appointment€of€a€conservator.€€We€do€not€agree€that€the€appointment€of€the€guardian€adÐ ˜è  Ðlitem€to€represent€the€testatorððs€interest€in€the€conservatorship€proceeding€revoked€the€power€ofÐ „Ô  Ðattorney€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Ô‡XðXXXðÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€34„1„107€sets€out€the€duties€of€a€guardian€ad€litemÐ pÀ Ðand€does€not€include€the€duty€or€authority€to€assume€control€of€the€assets€or€estate€of€the€person€onÐ \¬ Ðwhose€behalf€a€conservatorship€proceeding€is€brought.Ô#†XðXXXð #Ô€€òòSee€also€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€34„6„104Ð H˜ Ð(stating€that€a€fiduciary€including€a€conservator,€charged€by€the€court€with€the€management€of€theÐ 4„ Ðprincipalððs€property€may€revoke€or€amend€a€pre„existing€power€of€attorney).Ð  p ÐÌà  àHowever,€the€evidence€indicates€that€the€guardian€ad€litem,€as€a€matter€of€fact,€undertookÐ øH Ðhandling€of€the€testatorððs€financial€affairs,€at€least€for€a€while€and€to€some€extent.€€The€guardian€adÐ ä4 Ðlitem€testified€that€he€kept€the€checkbook,€paid€some€bills,€and€gave€the€testator€money€weekly€forÐ Ð  Ðliving€expenses.€€He€later€turned€these€duties€over€to€the€testatorððs€grandchildren€because€it€was€moreÐ ¼  Ðeconomical€for€the€testator.€€We€note€that€the€record€also€indicates€that€upon€the€filing€of€the€petition,Ð ¨ø Ðthe€court€issued€a€restraining€order€that€may€have€prohibited€Robert€Brindley€from€using€the€powerÐ ”ä Ðof€attorney.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€attempted€to€use€the€power€of€attorney€afterÐ €Ð Ðthe€filing€of€the€motion€to€dismiss.€€In€this€situation,€it€may€be€true€that€as€of€April€1990,€the€powerÐ l¼ Ðof€attorney€did€not€create€a€confidential€relationship€òòper€se€óóbecause€the€legal€status€of€the€parties€didÐ X ¨ Ðnot,€at€that€time,€create€a€fiduciary€duty€upon€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€in€his€actions€toward€the€testator.€Ð D!” ÐNonetheless,€the€power€of€attorney€is€relevant€to€the€degree€of€control€or€influence€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_ÔÐ 0"€  Ðmay€have€had€over€his€father€during€this€time€period€as€well€as€the€degree€of€confidence€reposed€inÐ #l! Ðhis€son€by€the€testator.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThat€is€because€confidential€relationships€are€not€limited€to€those€which€are€officiallyÐ à%0!$ Ðsanctioned€by€law€and€impose€responsibilities€because€of€the€legal€status€of€the€parties.€The€term€alsoÐ Ì&"% Ðincludes€less€well-defined€relationships€where€one€party€reposes€confidence€in€another,€and€acts€inÐ ¸'#& Ðreliance€upon€the€otherððs€representations.€òòóó€Where,€however,€the€relationship€arises€from€ð ðfamily€orÐ ¤(ô#' Ðother€relationships,ðð€proof€of€the€additional€elements€of€dominion€and€control€is€necessary€to€giveÐ )à$( Ðrise€to€the€presumption€of€undue€influence.€€òòMatlockóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€385„86€(citing€òòKellyóó,€558Ð |*Ì%) ÐS.W.2d€at€845);€òòsee€also€Mitchellóó,€779€S.W.2d€at€384.€The€mere€relationship€of€a€parent€and€child,Ð h+¸&* Ðwithout€more,€is€not€sufficient€to€prove€a€confidential€relationship.€€òòHarper€v.€Watkinsóó,€670€S.W.2dÐ ° Ð611,€628€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983)€(citing€òòKellyóó,€558€S.W.2d€at€847).€€In€òòKellyóó,€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ œì ÐCourt€specifically€held:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  à[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€normal€relationship€between€a€mentally€competent€parent€and€an€adult€childÐ `° Ðis€not€per€se€a€confidential€relationship€and€raises€no€presumption€of€the€invalidityÐ L œ Ðof€a€gift€from€one€to€the€other.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌòòKellyóó,€558€S.W.2d€at€848.€€Thus,€close€familial€relationships,€unlike€legal€relationships,€are€notÐ  ` Ðconfidential€òòper€se.óó€€Whether€a€particular€relationship€constitutes€a€confidential€relationship€so€asÐ ü L  Ðto€create€a€presumption€of€invalidity€of€a€transaction€beneficial€to€the€grantee€must€be€answered€byÐ è 8  Ðthe€evidence€in€a€particular€case.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àIn€order€for€such€a€presumption€to€arise€there€must€be€a€showing€that€there€wereÐ ¬ü  Ðpresent€the€elements€of€dominion€and€control€by€the€stronger€over€the€weaker,€ò òoró óÐ ˜è  Ðthere€must€be€a€showing€of€senility€or€physical€or€mental€deterioration€of€the€donorÐ ˆØ  Ðò òoró ó€that€fraud€and€duress€was€involved,€ò òoró ó€other€conditions€which€would€tend€toÐ tÄ Ðestablish€that€the€free€agency€of€the€donor€was€destroyed€and€the€will€of€the€doneeÐ d´ Ðwas€substituted€therefor.ÐP Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIn€re€Estate€of€Elamóó,€738€S.W.2d€at€173€(quoting€òòKellyóó,€558€S.W.2d€at€848)€(emphasis€added).€Ð (x ÐòòóóThere€must€also€be€a€showing€of€some€activity€on€the€part€of€the€beneficiary€in€connection€with€theÐ d Ðpreparation€or€execution€of€the€will.€€òòKellyóó,òò€óó558€S.W.2d€at€847;€òòHalleóó,€199€Tenn.€at€445,€287€S.W.2dÐ P Ðat€61.€€Ð ì< ÐÌà  àDespite€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ôððs€arguments€that€no€evidence€was€presented€to€establish€the€requiredÐ Ä Ðelements€of€dominion€and€control,€we€find€that€there€was€material€evidence€from€which€the€juryÐ ° Ðcould€have€concluded€that€the€testator€had€suffered€mental€deterioration,€that€the€testator€had€comeÐ œì Ðto€depend€on€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô,€that€the€testator€was€easily€manipulated,€and€that€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€wasÐ ˆØ Ðinvolved€in€the€change€in€the€codicil€which€gave€him€50%€of€the€lumber€business,€in€contrast€to€allÐ tÄ Ðprevious€wills€and€codicils.Ð ` ° ÐÌà8  àWhere,€however,€the€contestant€shows€the€existence€of€suspicious€circumstances€suchÐ 8"ˆ  Ðas€a€confidential€relationship€in€combination€with€the€beneficiaryððs€involvement€inÐ $#t! Ðprocuring€the€will,€or€in€combination€with€impairment€of€the€testatorððs€mentalÐ $`" Ðcapacity,€there€arises€the€presumption€of€fraud€or€undue€influence.Ðü$L #Ð Ð  ÐÌòòÔ_ÔTaliaferroÔ_Ôóó,€622€S.W.2d€at€835„36.€€The€existence€of€a€confidential€relationship,€followed€by€aÐ Ô&$"% Ðtransaction€where€the€dominant€party€receives€a€benefit€from€the€other€party,€gives€rise€to€aÐ À'#& Ðpresumption€of€undue€influence.€€òòÔ_ÔMatlockÔ_Ôóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€386.Ð ¬(ü#' ÐÌà  àEven€without€evidence€of€a€confidential€relationship€between€the€testator€and€the€beneficiary,Ð „*Ô%) Ðevidence€of€other€suspicious€circumstances€create€a€jury€question€on€undue€influence.€€òòHamilton€v.Ð p+À&* ÐMorrisóó,€67€S.W.3d€786€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001)€(citing€òòMitchellóó,€779€S.W.2d€at€389„90).€€òòóóAs€statedÐ ° Ðearlier,€whether€the€circumstances€relied€upon€by€the€person€challenging€the€document€are€sufficientÐ œì Ðto€invalidate€it€should€be€ð ðdecided€by€the€application€of€sound€principles€and€good€sense€to€the€factsÐ ˆØ Ðof€each€case.ðð€€òòHalleóó,€199€Tenn.€at€454,€287€S.W.2d€at€61.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àIn€this€very€fact„specific€inquiry,€taking€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€theÐ L œ Ðlight€most€favorable€to€the€verdict,€we€find€there€was€material€evidence€from€which€the€jury€couldÐ 8 ˆ Ðhave€found€that€the€testator€was€unduly€influenced.€€The€testator€was€of€the€advanced€age€of€eighty„Ð $ t Ðone€(81)€when€the€final€codicil€was€created.€€Without€question,€his€mental€faculties€had€deteriorated.Ð  ` ÐLater€testimony€indicated€he€was€suffering€from€dementia.€€Both€Linda€Dale€and€her€daughterÐ ü L  Ðtestified€regarding€the€deterioration€in€his€mental€acuity€after€his€1988€hospitalization.€€Six€monthsÐ è 8  Ðprior€to€execution€of€the€codicil€at€issue,€a€petition€for€conservatorship€had€been€filed€supported€byÐ Ô$  Ðmedical€opinions€that€the€testator€was€incompetent€to€manage€his€affairs.€€€Dr.€Auble€testified€thatÐ À  Ðthe€testator€was€particularly€vulnerable€to€manipulation€due€to€his€lack€of€day„to„day€memory.€€Dr.Ð ¬ü  ÐÔ_ÔAubleÔ_Ô€examined€the€testator€only€days€before€the€execution€of€the€final€codicil.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€there€was€testimony€establishing€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ôððs€role€in€the€revision€of€theÐ pÀ Ðcodicil€at€issue.€€The€jury€could€have€decided€and€found€significant€that€when€the€attorney€read€theÐ \¬ Ðdocument€to€the€testator€he€voiced€no€objection,€that€immediately€upon€leaving€the€attorneyððs€officeÐ H˜ ÐMr.€Baker€took€the€testator€to€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ôððs€office,€that€when€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€read€the€documentÐ 4„ Ðto€the€testator€he€found€it€unacceptable,€that€Mr.€Baker€immediately€returned€the€testator€to€theÐ  p Ðlawyerððs€office,€that€the€testator€appeared€agitated€and€confused€later€in€the€day,€and€that€RobertÐ  \ ÐÔ_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€disclaimed€any€recollection€of€that€incident.Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€jury€could€have€found€suspicious€circumstances€or€indications€that€the€codicil€was€notÐ Ð  Ðthe€product€of€the€testatorððs€free€will€from€a€number€of€other€facts€including€the€relationship€betweenÐ ¼  ÐMr.€Brindley€and€Mr.€Baker.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€hired€Mr.€Baker€to€care€for€his€father€and€later€hired€himÐ ¨ø Ðat€his€construction€company,€although€there€was€some€discrepancy€between€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ôððs€and€Mr.Ð ”ä ÐBakerððs€understanding€of€his€job;€Mr.€Baker€drove€the€testator€to€the€lawyerððs€office€to€have€the€finalÐ €Ð Ðcodicil€drafted€and€then€took€the€testator€to€Mr.€Brindleyððs€office,€and€back€again€to€the€lawyerððsÐ l¼ Ðoffice.€Mr.€Bakerððs€testimony€regarding€the€testatorððs€condition€differed€from€that€of€other€peopleÐ X ¨ Ðwho€saw€the€testator€daily.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€jury€could€also€have€found€suspicious,€or€indicative€of€the€influence€of€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_ÔÐ #l! Ðover€his€father,€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ôððs€sudden€increased€involvement€in€his€fatherððs€life,€including€theÐ $X" Ðpayment€of€over€$40,000€in€attorney€fees€in€an€effort€to€keep€the€testator€from€being€declaredÐ ô$D # Ðincompetent.€€His€contact€with€his€father€increased€after€the€testator€was€placed€in€the€nursing€home.€Ð à%0!$ ÐAfter€the€testator€returned€home€and€became€more€mobile,€the€testator€frequently€wanted€to€visit€hisÐ Ì&"% Ðson€to€discuss€specific€matters.€€The€testator€executed€a€power€of€attorney€making€his€son€hisÐ ¸'#& Ðattorney€in€fact,€which€the€son€attempted€to€use€to€gain€access€to€records€of€the€lumber€business.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐLinda€Dale€always€took€care€of€her€parents€and€their€business€and€only€after€the€onset€of€theÐ )à$( Ðtestatorððs€mental€deterioration€did€Mr.€Brindley€begin€visiting€more€often€and€taking€an€interest€inÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€testatorððs€health€care.€€While€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€asserts€that€his€father€was€angry€with€Linda€DaleÐ h+¸&* Ðbecause€she€did€not€want€him€to€leave€the€nursing€home€and,€allegedly,€because€of€his€dissatisfactionÐ ° Ðof€some€transactions€in€the€lumber€business,€the€jury€could€have€reached€a€different€conclusionÐ œì Ðregarding€the€incentive€for€the€testatorððs€change€of€mind.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àOther€facts€which€the€jury€could€have€found€and€relied€upon€include:€secrecy€concerning€theÐ `° Ðwillððs€existence,€even€though€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€had€been€consulted€by€his€father€about€the€codicil,€andÐ L œ Ðthe€testatorððs€inability€to€read€due€to€medical€problems.€€In€addition,€the€April€1990€codicil€attemptedÐ 8 ˆ Ða€change€from€prior€testamentary€dispositions€in€a€way€that€benefitted€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô.€€Under€it,Ð $ t Ðhe€would€receive€half€of€the€lumber€business;€under€previous€wills€and€codicils,€he€would€haveÐ  ` Ðreceived€no€interest€in€that€business.׃(×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àMr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€relies€on€òòIn€re€Estate€of€Elam,óó€738€S.W.2d€169€(Tenn.€1987),€òòóówherein€theÐ Ô$  ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€affirmed€the€juryððs€finding€of€insufficient€evidence€that€undue€influenceÐ À  Ðwas€exercised,€and€òòóóobserved:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àIt€is€the€long€established€rule€in€this€State€that€in€reviewing€a€judgment€based€uponÐ „Ô  Ða€jury€verdict€the€appellate€courts€are€not€at€liberty€to€weigh€the€evidence€to€decideÐ pÀ Ðwhere€the€preponderance€lies,€but€are€limited€to€determining€whether€there€is€materialÐ \¬ Ðevidence€to€support€the€verdict;€the€appellate€court€is€required€to€take€the€strongestÐ H˜ Ðlegitimate€view€of€all€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€verdict,€to€assume€the€truth€ofÐ 4„ Ðall€that€tends€to€support€it,€allowing€all€reasonable€inferences€to€sustain€the€verdict,Ð  p Ðand€to€discard€all€to€the€contrary.€€Having€thus€examined€the€record,€if€there€be€anyÐ  \ Ðmaterial€evidence€to€support€the€verdict,€it€must€be€affirmed€.€.€.€.€òòElectric€PowerÐ øH ÐBoard€v.€St.€Joseph€Valley€Struct.óó,€691€S.W.2d€522,€526€(Tenn.€1985).Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIn€re€Estate€of€Elamóó,€738€S.W.2d€at€171.€€This€rule€applies€equally€in€the€case€before€us.€€Herein,Ð ¼  Ðhowever,€the€jury€specifically€found€that,€while€the€testator€possessed€testamentary€capacity,€theÐ ¨ø Ðexecution€of€the€final€codicil€was€not€the€testatorððs€own€free€act€and€will,€but€was€the€result€of€theÐ ”ä Ðundue€influence€of€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô,€Sr.€Ð €Ð ÐÌòòóóà  àThe€record€before€us€contains€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€of€undueÐ X ¨ Ðinfluence€and,€consequently,€sufficient€evidence€to€support€denial€of€a€directed€verdict.€€Obviously,Ð D!” Ðthere€were€disputed€material€facts,€and€from€the€evidence€presented€more€than€one€conclusion€couldÐ 0"€  Ðhave€been€drawn€as€to€the€issues€presented.€òòóó€ð ðThe€rule€is€well€settled€that€where€the€evidence€is€inÐ #l! Ðconflict,€as€here,€and€there€is€material€evidence€both€ways€on€fact€questions,€this€Court€will€notÐ $X" Ðdisturb€the€juryððs€verdict.ðð€€òòEast€Tennessee€&€Ô_ÔW.N.C.R.Ô_Ô€Co.€v.€Gougeóó,€30€Tenn.€App.€40,€42,€203Ð ô$D # ÐS.W.2d€170,€171€(1947).€€Because€the€record€contains€sufficient€evidence€which€would€allow€theÐ à%0!$ Ðjury€to€find€undue€influence,€the€trial€court€correctly€denied€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ôððs€request€for€a€directedÐ Ì&"% Ðverdict.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÑ'OYÑâ 'âѰ°Ñâ 'âÑ  ÑÓ  ÓB.€€Rebutting€the€PresumptionÐ ° ÐÓ†VÓÌà  àMr.€Brindley€argues€that€even€if€there€is€sufficient€evidence€for€the€presumption€of€undueÐ ˆØ Ðinfluence€to€arise,€the€presumption€was€rebutted€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€of€the€fairness€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€transaction.€€He€correctly€states€the€generally€applicable€rule€that€once€the€challengers€presentÐ `° Ðsufficient€evidence€to€substantiate€their€undue€influence€claim,€the€proponents€of€the€document€mustÐ L œ Ðpresent€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€challenged€transaction€or€testamentary€disposition€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðfair.€€òòHamiltonóó,òò€óó67€S.W.3d€at€793;€òòsee€also€Ô_ÔMatlockÔ_Ôóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€386;€òòRichmond€v.€Christianóó,€555Ð $ t ÐS.W.2d€105,€107€(Tenn.€1977).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€ð ðfairness€of€the€transactionðð€standard€is€readily€applicable€and€unquestionably€reasonableÐ è 8  Ðin€the€situation€where€the€question€is€whether€the€dominant€party€has€taken€undue€advantage€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðweaker€party.€€In€that€case,€the€objective€fairness€to€the€weaker€party€is€relevant€and€reasonablyÐ À  Ðobtainable.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòRichmondóó,òò€óó555€S.W.2d€at€105€(holding€unfair€a€transaction€where€an€elderlyÐ ¬ü  Ðwoman€transferred€her€only€asset€to€her€son€and,€thereby,€impoverished€herself).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€before€us,€however,€the€testator€did€not€suffer€any€disadvantage.€€The€fairness€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€testatorððs€distribution€of€his€estate€between€his€two€children€is€not€readily€measurable€by€anyÐ \¬ Ðobjective€standards.€€A€parentððs€view€of€fairness€may€be€shaped€by€many€factors€which€cannot€beÐ H˜ Ðknown€by€outsiders.€€However,€because€the€parties€have€each€argued€the€fairness,€or€lack€thereof,Ð 4„ Ðof€the€distribution€made€in€the€codicil,€and€because€fairness€is€a€question€of€fact,€we€examine€theÐ  p Ðjuryððs€implicit€finding€that€the€presumption€of€undue€influence€was€not€overcome.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р \ ÐÌà  àConsidering€the€evidence€in€the€record,€a€jury€could€find€that€the€changes€to€the€will€undulyÐ ä4 Ðbenefitted€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€in€light€of€the€unremitting€care€Linda€Dale€provided€to€her€parents,€asÐ Ð  Ðcompared€to€Mr.€Brindleyððs€involvement€with€them,€the€Dalesðð€lengthy€involvement€in€running€theÐ ¼  Ðlumber€yard,€Mr.€Brindleyððs€lack€of€involvement€in€the€operation€of€the€lumber€yard,€the€testatorððsÐ ¨ø Ðpromise€that€the€Dales€would€own€the€lumber€yard€if€they€continued€to€pay€him,€and€Mr.€BrindleyððsÐ ”ä Ðfull€ownership€of€a€construction€business€he€acquired€from€the€testator,€even€though€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_ÔÐ €Ð Ðtestified€he€had€purchased€the€assets€of€that€business€from€his€father,€and€they€were€few€at€the€timeÐ l¼ Ðof€purchase.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àWhile€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€argues€that€a€completely€equal€distribution€is€fair,€we€note€the€codicilÐ 0"€  Ðdoes€not€make€an€equal€distribution€because€the€testator€only€owned€51%€of€the€lumber€yard,€andÐ #l! Ðthe€codicil€gave€98%€of€that€interest€to€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€argues€that€the€distributionÐ $X" Ðmakes€an€equal€distribution€by€taking€into€consideration€the€earlier€transfer€to€Linda€Dale€and€herÐ ô$D # Ðhusband€of€part€of€the€lumber€yard€business€and€earlier€purchases€by€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€of€the€gas€station,Ð à%0!$ Ðthe€farm,€and€the€construction€businesses.€€To€the€extent€the€juryððs€verdict€includes€a€finding€that€theÐ Ì&"% Ðcodicil€would€unduly€benefit€Robert€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô,€or€can€be€construed€as€including€a€finding€that€theÐ ¸'#& Ðcodicil€did€not€make€a€fair€distribution,€we€find€there€was€material€evidence€in€the€record€to€supportÐ ° Ðthe€finding€that€the€presumption€of€undue€influence€was€not€overcome.Ð œì ÐÌà  àBecause€the€effect€of€undue€influence€creates€a€disposition€contrary€to€the€independent€willÐ tÄ Ðof€the€testator€or€grantor,€òòÔ_ÔCrainÔ_Ôóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€194,€courts€will€look€at€whether€the€disposition€isÐ `° Ðunjust€or€unnatural€or€whether€it€differs€from€the€testatorððs€expressed€intentions.€€òòMitchellóó,€779Ð L œ ÐS.W.2d€at€388.€€For€example,€in€òòRichmond€óóan€elderly€woman,€who€lived€with€one€of€her€children,Ð 8 ˆ Ðin€essence€revoked€an€earlier€stated€intent€to€divide€of€her€estate€equally€among€her€three€childrenÐ $ t Ðby€giving€by€deed€the€only€asset€she€owned€to€the€one€child.€€The€court€found€a€presumption€ofÐ  ` Ðundue€influence€had€arisen€on€the€basis€of€several€circumstances,€including€the€donorððs€suddenÐ ü L  Ðchange€of€plan€from€making€an€equal€division€of€her€real€estate€among€her€three€children€to€making€Ð è 8  Ða€wholesale€transfer€to€her€son.€€òòIdóó.€at€108.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€jury€herein€could€have€concluded€that€the€codicil€was€contrary€to€the€testatorððs€previouslyÐ ¬ü  Ðexpressed€intentions€to€leave€his€remaining€51%€in€the€lumber€yard€to€his€daughter€and€her€husbandÐ ˜è  Ðwho€had€worked€in€the€business€for€many€years.€€At€trial,€Linda€Dale€testified:Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  àHe€[the€testator]€said€that€Terry€and€I€would€[own€the€lumber€yard].€He€said€that€asÐ \¬ Ðlong€as€we€would€take€care€of€him€and€Mother€and€work,€even€though€they€might€notÐ H˜ Ðbe€able€to€work,€that€they€could€draw€their€money€like€they€always€did,€and€we€tookÐ 4„ Ðcare€of€the€business€like€we€did€when€they€were€able€to€help€us.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àOther€witnesses€confirmed€this€stated€intent€of€the€testator.€€Although€there€was€someÐ øH Ðtestimony€that€the€testator€made€statements€closer€in€time€to€the€execution€of€the€codicil€that€heÐ ä4 Ðwanted€to€leave€his€estate€equally€to€his€children,€the€jury€could€have€found€these€statementsÐ Ð  Ðinconclusive,€not€credible,€or€themselves€the€product€of€undue€influence.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àMr.€Brindley€further€argues€that€the€fact€that€the€testator€received€independent€legal€adviceÐ ”ä Ðrebutted€the€presumption€of€undue€influence€raised€by€Linda€Dale.€€Proof€that€the€testator€hadÐ €Ð Ðindependent€legal€advice€concerning€the€transaction€is€one€way€of€showing€fairness.€€òòHamiltonóó,òò€óó67Ð l¼ ÐS.W.3d€at€793;€òòMitchellóó,òò€óó779€S.W.2d€at€389.€€However,€it€is€proof€that€the€donor€receivedÐ X ¨ Ðindependent€and€complete€advice€ð ðrespecting€the€consequences€and€advisability€of€the€giftðð€thatÐ D!” Ðconstitutes€an€example€of€fairness.€€òòRichmondóó,€555€S.W.2d€at€107„08.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌÔ‡XðXXXðÔà8  àMoreover,€the€decedent€apparently€did€not€seek€and,€certainly,€did€not€receive€adviceÐ $X" Ðfrom€an€independent€source€concerning€the€advisability€of€the€transfer€to€her€son.€Ð ô$D # ÐAttorney€Price€admitted€this€in€his€testimony;€his€discussion€of€the€transaction€withÐ à%0!$ ÐMrs.€Christian€was€cursory€at€best.€€He€merely€determined€that€she€knew€that€theÐ Ì&"% Ðdeed€transferred€the€entire€tract€to€her€son€and€that€such€a€transfer€was€what€sheÐ ¸'#& Ðintended.€€This€falls€short€of€the€rule€stated€in€òòTurner€v.€Leathersóó,€supra,€that€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðindependent€advice€be€complete€as€well€as€private.€€In€that€case,€the€donor€met€withÐ )à$( Ðan€alleged€independent€advisor€and€told€him€that€he€knew€what€he€was€doing€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðintended€to€do€it;€but,€the€court€observed:Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIt€is€not€a€question€of€whether€he€knew€what€he€intended€to€do,€butÐ ° Ðòòhow€this€intention€was€produced,€whether€it€was€by€abuse€of€aÐ œì Ðconfidential€and€fiduciary€relation.óóЈØ` x` x ÐÌòòRichmondóó,€555€S.W.2d€at€109€(quotingòò€Turner€v.€Leathersóó,€191€Tenn.€292,€297,€232€S.W.2d€269,Ð `° Ð271€(1950)).Ô#†XðXXXðÛs#ÔÔ‡XðXXXðÔÐ L œ ÐÌà  àThe€testimony€of€Mr.€Forrester,€the€attorney€who€prepared€the€codicil€at€issue,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€does€not€comeÐ $ t Ðclose€to€establishing€that€he€explored€the€change€in€his€first€draft€or€the€advisability€of€it.€€He€did€notÐ  ` Ðeven€testify€that€he€was€asked€to€make€a€change€after€his€first€draft.€€His€only€recollection€of€theÐ ü L  Ðexecution€of€the€codicil€was€that€he€was€certain€it€followed€the€procedure€he€normally€used.€€He€alsoÐ è 8  Ðtestified€that€the€testator€understood€what€the€codicil€did.€€This€testimony€goes€to€establishing€properÐ Ô$  Ðexecution€and€testamentary€capacity.€€Undue€influence€presupposes€a€mind€of€testamentary€capacity.€Ð À  ÐòòÔ_ÔParhamÔ_Ô€v.€Walkeróó,€568€S.W.2d€622,€624€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1978).€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€recordÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€the€testator€sought€or€received€independent€or€complete€advice€regarding€the€advisability€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðchange€in€his€codicil€and€no€evidence€that€any€independent€advisor€sought€to€determine€the€how€hisÐ „Ô  Ðð ðintention€Ô#†XðXXXðUy#ÔÔ‡XðXXXðÔwas€produced.ðð€Ô#†XðXXXð€~#ÔÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àOn€the€basis€of€the€evidence€in€the€record,€we€conclude€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€did€not,€as€a€matterÐ H˜ Ðof€law,€overcome€the€presumption€of€undue€influence€and,€therefore,€the€court€properly€allowed€theÐ 4„ Ðissues€to€go€to€the€jury.€€The€trial€court€correctly€denied€a€directed€verdict.Ð  p ÐÌà@³³ ìàIV.€€Thirteenth€JurorˆÐ øH ÐÌà  àNext,€Mr.€Brindley€argues€a€new€trial€should€be€granted€on€the€issue€of€undue€influenceÐ Ð  Ðbecause€the€juryððs€verdict€was€against€the€weight€of€the€evidence.€€He€maintains€that€the€trial€courtÐ ¼  Ðwas€required€to€grant€a€new€trial€in€that€situation€in€performance€of€its€duty€as€a€thirteenth€juror.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àOne€of€the€functions€a€trial€judge€possesses€and€should€exercise€is€that€of€a€thirteenth€juror.€Ð €Ð ÐòòHolden€v.€Ô_ÔRannickÔ_Ôóó,€682€S.W.2d€903,€904„05€(Tenn.€1984)€(quoting€òòCumberland€Telephone€&Ð l¼ ÐTelegraph€Co.€v.€Ô_ÔSmithwickÔ_Ôóó,€112€Tenn.€463,€469,€79€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€803,€804€(1904)).€€In€this€capacity,€the€trialÐ X ¨ Ðjudge€is€under€a€duty€to€independently€weigh€the€evidence€and€determine€whether€the€evidenceÐ D!” Ðpreponderates€in€favor€of€or€against€the€verdict.€€òòWoods€v.€Ô_ÔWalldorfÔ_Ô€&€Co.,€Incóó.,€26€S.W.3d€868,€873Ð 0"€  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999)€(quoting€òòShivers€v.€Ramseyóó,€937€S.W.2d€945,€947€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996));Ð #l! ÐòòÔ_ÔWitterÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔNesbitÔ_Ôóó,€878€S.W.2d€116,€121€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993);€òòÔ_ÔGrissomÔ_Ô€v.€Metropolitan€Ô_ÔGovððtÔ_Ô€ofÐ $X" ÐNashville€and€Davidson€Co.óó,€817€S.W.2d€679,€684€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€The€trial€judge,€afterÐ ô$D # Ðmaking€an€independent€decision€on€the€issues,€must€be€satisfied€with€the€verdict,€and,€if€dissatisfied,Ð à%0!$ Ðmust€set€it€aside.€€òòHoldenóó,€682€S.W.2d€at€905.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àWhere€a€trial€judge€approves€the€verdict€without€comment,€an€appellate€court€will€presumeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€the€judge€has€adequately€performed€her€function€as€a€thirteenth€juror.€€òòHoldenóó,€682€S.W.2d€atÐ )à$( Ð905€(citing€òòCentral€Ô_ÔTruckawayÔ_Ô€Sys.€v.€Ô_ÔWaltnerÔ_Ôóó,€36€Tenn.€App.€202,€217,€253€S.W.2d€985,€991Ð ° Ð(1952)).€€The€trial€court,€like€the€jury,€is€not€bound€to€give€reasons€for€its€action€in€granting€orÐ œì Ðdenying€a€new€trial€based€on€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòJames€E.€Ô_ÔStratesÔ_Ô€Shows,€Inc.€v.Ð ˆØ ÐÔ_ÔJakobikÔ_Ôóó,€554€S.W.2d€613,€615€(Tenn.€1977).€€Where€the€reasons€given€by€the€trial€court,€orÐ tÄ Ðstatements€made,€in€ruling€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€indicate€the€trial€court€was€actually€dissatisfiedÐ `° Ðwith€the€verdict€or€misapprehended€its€function€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€appellate€courts€are€requiredÐ L œ Ðto€grant€a€new€trial.€€òòHoldenóó,€682€S.W.2d€at€905;€òòÔ_ÔJakobikÔ_Ôóó,€554€S.W.2d€at€615.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àThe€discretion€permitted€a€trial€judge€in€granting€or€denying€a€new€trial€is€so€wideÐ  ` Ðthat€our€courts€have€held€that€he€does€not€have€to€give€a€reason€for€his€ruling.€€If€heÐ ü L  Ðdoes€give€reasons,€the€appellate€court€will€only€look€to€them€for€the€purpose€ofÐ è 8  Ðdetermining€whether€he€passed€upon€the€issue€and€was€satisfied€or€dissatisfied€withÐ Ô$  Ðthe€verdict.€€òòWakefield€v.€Baxteróó,€41€Tenn.€App.€592,€297€S.W.2d€97;€òòState€v.€Kenneróó,Ð À  Ðòòsupraóó.€€If€the€trial€judge€does€not€give€a€reason€for€his€action,€the€appellate€courts€willÐ ¬ü  Ðpresume€he€did€weigh€the€evidence€and€exercised€his€function€as€thirteenth€juror.€Ð ˜è  ÐòòGordonððs€Transports€v.€Baileyóó,€41€Tenn.€App.€365,€294€S.W.2d€313;€òòBenson€v.Ð „Ô  ÐFowleróó,€43€Tenn.€App.€147,€306€S.W.2d€49.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌòòÔ_ÔMizeÔ_Ô€v.€Skeenóó,€63€Tenn.€App.€37,€43,€468€S.W.2d€733,€736€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1971).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€record€before€us€contains€no€indication€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€properly€perform€theÐ  p Ðfunction€of€thirteenth€juror,€independently€assess€the€evidence€and€the€issues,€and€approve€theÐ  \ Ðverdict.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€points€to€no€such€indication,€but€relies€only€on€his€argument€that€the€evidenceÐ øH Ðpreponderates€against€the€verdict.€€We€cannot€infer€from€any€of€the€courtððs€comments€that€it€did€notÐ ä4 Ðweigh€the€evidence€or€that€it€disagreed€with€where€the€preponderance€lay.€€òòSee€Shiversóó,€937€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ðat€947.€€Because€we€must€presume,€and€in€fact€we€find,€that€the€trial€court€properly€performed€itsÐ ¼  Ðfunction€as€thirteenth€juror,€our€review€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ôððs€argument€regarding€the€sufficiency€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðevidence€is€subject€to€the€well„established€standard€discussed€earlier.€€òòWoodsóó,€26€S.W.3d€at€874.€€OurÐ ”ä Ðrole€is€simply€to€examine€the€record€to€determine€if€there€is€any€material€evidence€to€support€theÐ €Ð Ðverdict.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€We€have€already€determined€that€there€is€material€evidence€toÐ l¼ Ðsupport€the€verdict.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà@ÀÀ ìàV.€€Jury€InstructionsˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àMr.€Brindley€also€argues€that€a€new€trial€is€required€because€the€jury€was€improperlyÐ $X" Ðinstructed.€€He€maintains€that€the€charge€was€incomplete€because€it€failed€to€provide€sufficientÐ ô$D # Ðinformation€on€the€law€of€undue€influence€by€distinguishing€between€direct€and€circumstantialÐ à%0!$ Ðevidence,€the€burden€of€proof,€and€confidential€relationships€in€combination€with€other€suspiciousÐ Ì&"% Ðcircumstances.€€Mr.€Brindley€claims€that€the€jury€should€have€been€instructed€that€proof€of€threatsÐ ¸'#& Ðand€coercion€regarding€the€provisions€of€the€will€are€necessary€to€prove€undue€influence€by€directÐ ¤(ô#' Ðevidence,€that€proof€of€his€specific€intent€to€unduly€influence€the€testator€was€required,€and€that€proofÐ )à$( Ðthe€transaction€was€fair,€including€proof€of€independent€advice,€would€rebut€the€presumption€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðundue€influence.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àThe€jury€was€instructed€on€the€issue€of€undue€influence€as€follows:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àA€will€or€codicil€thereto€may€not€be€enforced€if€it€is€brought€about€by€undueÐ ˆØ Ðinfluence.€€Undue€influence€is€the€overcoming€of€the€mind€of€the€person€making€aÐ tÄ Ðwill€or€a€codicil€by€acts€or€conduct€of€another€person.€€Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àMere€general€influence€of€another€person€that€does€not€affect€the€act€of€making€a€willÐ 8 ˆ Ðor€a€codicil€is€not€undue€influence.€€To€be€undue€influence,€the€influence€mustÐ $ t Ðamount€to€coercion€that€destroys€the€freedom€of€choice€of€the€person€making€the€willÐ  ` Ðor€codicil€thereto.€€It€substitutes€the€wishes€or€desires€of€another€person€and€compelsÐ ü L  Ðthe€maker€of€the€will€or€codicil€to€dispose€of€property€in€a€way€that€would€not€haveÐ è 8  Ðbeen€done€otherwise.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThis€language,€with€the€exception€of€the€term€ð ðcodicil,ðð€is€taken€verbatim€from€òòTennesseeÐ ¬ü  ÐPattern€Jury€Instructions€Civilóó€ðð€11.37€(3d€ed.€1997).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àOmitting€only€a€portion€of€ðð€11.38,€dealing€with€individuals€who€have€ð ðno€blood€relationshipÐ pÀ Ðto€the€maker€of€the€will,ðð€which€was€irrelevant€to€the€case€before€us,€the€court€then€quoted€theÐ \¬ Ðremaining€pattern€jury€instruction€as€follows:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àIn€determining€the€issues€of€undue€influence,€you€may€consider,€among€other€things,Ð  p Ðthe€following:Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à1.€€Did€the€terms€of€the€will€or€codicil€unduly€benefit€the€beneficiaries׃&×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€of€the€willÐ ä4 Ðor€codicil?ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à2.€€Are€the€terms€of€the€will€or€codicil€different€from€the€expressed€intentions€of€theÐ ¼  Ðmaker€of€the€will€or€codicil?ШøÐ Ð  Ðà8  à3.€€Did€the€beneficiariesðð€relationship€to€the€person€making€the€will€or€codicil€giveÐ ”ä Ðthe€beneficiaries€an€opportunity€to€influence€the€terms€of€the€will€or€the€codicilÐ €Ð Ðthereto?Ðl¼Ð Ð  Ðà8  à4.€€Did€the€mental€and€physical€condition€of€the€maker€of€the€will€or€codicil€allow€theÐ X ¨ Ðmakerððs€freedom€of€choice€to€be€overcome€by€the€actions€of€others?ÐD!”Ð Ð  Ðà8  à5.€€Did€the€beneficiaries€of€the€will€or€codicil€actively€take€part€in€determining€theÐ 0"€  Ðprovisions€of€the€will€or€codicil,€or€in€causing€it€to€be€executed?Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€court€also€instructed€the€jury€on€the€issue€of€confidential€relationships€and€presumptionsÐ ô$D # Ðas€follows,€tracking€the€language€of€ðð€11.39€of€the€pattern€jury€instructions:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àA€confidential€relationship€exists€whenever€the€trust€and€confidence€of€one€personÐ ¸'#& Ðis€placed€in€the€honesty€and€faithfulness€of€another.€€Ð¤(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐÐ )à$( Ðà8  àThere€is€a€presumption€that€the€will€or€codicil€thereto€was€obtained€by€the€undueÐ ° Ðinfluence€of€Robert€W.€Brindley,€Sr.€if€you€find:МìÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à1.€€That€a€confidential€relationship€existed€between€the€person€making€the€will€andÐ tÄ Ðcodicil€thereto€and€Robert€W.€Brindley,€Sr.;€and€€Ð`°Ð Ð  Ðà8  à2.€€That€Robert€W.€Brindley,€Sr.,€was€active€in€causing€the€will€or€codicil€thereto€toÐ L œ Ðbe€made,€and€unduly€profited€from€it.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àThis€presumption€may€be€overcome€if€Robert€W.€Brindley,€Sr.€proves€by€clear€andÐ  ` Ðconvincing€evidence€that€the€making€of€the€will€and€codicil€thereto€or€codicil€theretoÐ ü L  Ðwas€not€the€result€of€undue€influence.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€the€trial€court€gave€the€pattern€instruction€on€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.Ð À  ÐÌà  àIn€Mr.€Brindleyððs€request€for€jury€instruction,€he€submitted€a€list€of€issues€and€asked€the€courtÐ ˜è  Ðto€instruct€the€jury€on€them€using€the€ð ðCivil€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instructions€(Third€Edition),€eachÐ „Ô  Ðin€its€entirety€unless€stated€otherwise.ðð€€Included€on€that€list€were€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence;Ð pÀ Ðwill€contest€„„€nature€of€the€proceedings;€and€burden€of€proof.€€In€addition,€Mr.€Brindley€requestedÐ \¬ Ðonly€one€special€instruction,€which€dealt€with€capacity€to€make€a€testamentary€gift,€as€contrasted€withÐ H˜ Ðcapacity€to€transact€business€generally.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àSignificantly,€the€record€contains€no€request€from€Mr.€Brindley€to€give€additional€or€moreÐ  \ Ðspecific€instructions€on€the€law€of€undue€influence,€confidential€relations,€or€suspiciousÐ øH Ðcircumstances.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€court€made€sure€that€the€parties€had€copies€of€theÐ ä4 Ðrevised€jury€charge€and€considered€the€partiesðð€corrections.€€Then€the€trial€court€asked€counsel€ifÐ Ð  Ðthere€was€ð ðanything€else€on€the€charge€we€need€to€discuss.ðð€€Mr.€Brindleyððs€counsel€answered€in€theÐ ¼  Ðnegative.€€After€the€jury€was€instructed,€the€court€heard€objections€to€the€charge.€€Mr.€Brindley€didÐ ¨ø Ðnot€object€to€the€trial€courtððs€charge€on€the€law€of€undue€influence,€confidential€relations,€orÐ ”ä Ðsuspicious€circumstances.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€51.02€provides:€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àAfter€the€judge€has€instructed€the€jury,€the€parties€shall€be€given€opportunity€toÐ 0"€  Ðobject,€out€of€hearing€of€the€jury,€to€the€content€of€an€instruction€given€or€to€failureÐ #l! Ðto€give€a€requested€instruction,€but€failure€to€make€objection€shall€not€prejudice€theÐ $X" Ðright€of€a€party€to€assign€the€basis€of€the€objection€as€error€in€support€of€a€motion€forÐ ô$D # Ða€new€trial.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àRule€51.02€permits€parties€to€allege€error€in€their€motions€for€a€new€trial€based€upon€either€Ð ¸'#& Ðinaccuracy€of€the€charge€as€given€or€failure€to€give€a€requested€appropriate€instruction,€even€though€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðno€objection€or€exception€in€this€respect€was€made€at€the€trial.€€òòRule€v.€Empire€Gas€Corp.óó,€563Ð )à$( ÐS.W.2d€551,€554€(Tenn.€1979).€€Prior€to€the€adoption€of€Rule€51.02€a€party€was€precluded€fromÐ |*Ì%) Ðpredicating€error€upon€an€alleged€omission€in€the€instructions€of€a€trial€judge€unless€the€party€hadÐ h+¸&* Ðpointed€out€such€omission€to€the€trial€judge€prior€to€the€submission€of€the€case€to€the€jury.€€òòIdóó.€€ð ðRuleÐ ° Ð51.02€does€not€constitute€a€departure€from€previous€procedure€in€this€state€.€.€.€as€the€advisoryÐ œì Ðcommittee€comment€to€the€rule€indicates€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Rather,€Rule€51.02€allows€parties€in€certainÐ ˆØ Ðcircumstances,€not€present€herein,€to€object€to€jury€instructions€on€appeal€when€an€instruction€wasÐ tÄ Ðinappropriately€given€or€a€party€requested€an€instruction€and€it€was€not€given€despite€the€objectingÐ `° Ðpartiesðð€silence€to€the€objection€before€the€lower€court.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àNothing€in€Rule€51.02€relieves€a€party€of€the€duty€to€request€an€instruction.€€The€proceduralÐ $ t Ðrule€governing€this€matter€prior€to€Rule€51.02,€namely€that€ð ðif€the€courtððs€charge€were€merelyÐ  ` Ðincomplete,€the€duty€was€upon€the€aggrieved€party€to€call€the€incompleteness€to€the€attention€of€theÐ ü L  Ðcourt,€or€the€defect€is€waived,ðð€€òòHomes€v.€American€Bakeries€Co.óó,€62€Tenn.€App.€601,€466€S.W.2dÐ è 8  Ð502,€505€(1976);€òòsee€also€Provence€v.€Williamsóó,€62€Tenn.€App.€371,€462€S.W.2d€885,€887€(1970),Ð Ô$  Ðhas€not€been€changed€by€the€enactment€of€Rule€51.02.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€since€Ð À  ÐRule€51.02,€that:€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àRule€51.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Court€Procedure€has€not€abolished€or€alteredÐ „Ô  Ðthe€rule€announced€in€the€òòProvenceóó€and€òòHolmesóó€cases€.€.€.€that€in€order€to€predicate€Ð pÀ Ðerror€upon€an€alleged€omission€in€the€instructions€given€to€the€jury€by€the€trial€judgeÐ \¬ Ðhe€must€have€pointed€out€such€omission€to€the€trial€judge€by€an€appropriate€requestÐ H˜ Ðfor€instruction.Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌòòRuleóó,€563€S.W.2d€at€554.€€Therefore€ð ðnothing€in€the€rule€.€.€.€€relieves€trial€counsel€of€the€burden€ofÐ  \ Ðrequesting€an€instruction€to€cover€alleged€omissions€in€the€instructions€as€given.ðð€€òòId.€óó€In€other€words,Ð øH Ðparties€bear€the€responsibility€of€bringing€to€the€trial€courtððs€attention€material€omissions€in€theÐ ä4 Ðinstructions.€òò€Id.óó;òò€Henry€County€Bd.€of€Educ.€v.€Burtonóó,€538€S.W.2d€394,€397-98€(Tenn.€1976);€òòJonesÐ Ð  Ðv.€Tennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.óó,€896€S.W.2d€553,€556€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).òòóó€€Where€they€failÐ ¼  Ðto€do€so,€this€court€will€not€reverse€unless€convinced€that€the€party€complaining€has€been€prejudicedÐ ¨ø Ðby€such€instruction,€or€that€justice€is€about€to€miscarry.€€òòBurtonóó,òò€óó538€S.W.2d€at€397€(quoting€òòCarneyÐ ”ä Ðv.€Cookóó,€158€Tenn.€333,€340,€13€S.W.2d€322,€325€(1929)).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAlthough€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrindleyÔ_Ô€characterizes€the€instructions€as€ð ðerroneous,ðð€his€actual€complaint€isÐ X ¨ Ðthat€additional€or€more€specific€instructions€should€have€been€given.€€However,€he€did€not€ask€forÐ D!” Ðany€additional€instruction€on€these€issues.€€Under€the€circumstances,€we€find€that€Mr.€BrindleyÐ 0"€  Ðwaived€this€issue€by€failing€to€bring€to€the€courtððs€attention€what€he€now€argues€were€materialÐ #l! Ðomissions€in€the€charge.€€Having€considered€the€charge,€we€cannot€say€that€Mr.€Brindley€wasÐ $X" Ðprejudiced€by€the€instructions€given,€or€that€justice€is€about€to€miscarry.€€òòBurtonóó,òò€óó538€S.W.2d€at€397.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÐ  Ì&"% Ðà@ll)ìàVI.ˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€This€case€is€remanded€for€any€furtherÐ ˆØ Ðproceedings€which€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€Robert€W.€Brindley,€Sr.,€forÐ tÄ Ðwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð `° ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð  ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE