ÿWPCâ Œd$7­»ËG‚<Ó‰7øv¢,ô ꟼqI‘x’ìQ€«—ÉQP„)§¿‘Å®ñÒó]¦˜auOTô¹dK<IÎôÐ^h$[§2®"iI0¥ªMûe§€oô¬d2þËútõb[ 7’`Äc‘_o†C‹ ez7вƒ‡,Qš¹²L2ë –•f‚ /ª¬ÎÕœ¹×6®PxôY~|Svjò\ t±þ¬ `ûµ ü¨ÅÔÐA'É Ã eH¾ål«H´$ ÈkjÚ¿™†}Ó€ŠÕ'*†–ÝW¢}î™má¶=dhh\ÑéaMü¡k§Ô’X¿ìaøO/ÖJÄÌó1ƒÙJÕL ´îþÚ™é–@‹¸mÙ–¥*¥[ÍN¦.Ø ü{ó‹«ãPMy>¥ØÅX [4}zYQ$ó »œôAJÂ3jòß¹†ŒQQÌþ¼Fð|è}c+L¥Éç„ð·Rœág…¿´‰»(-R”ùhQq-^ôšß?b¤7àS¬áÏJ|þãa×Ýf¡‚8Ê$†ýÛ*»póH`# @UNK %™ 0(Ÿw@Ç4  * ¢- 0PÏ @L omk bØ:àU:TTTTTTTTTTTTTT AQ\Æ­ 0Dss 0D·· D/û B* BG D3ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd 0D————————— AÛ D?\ BG›˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ KLMNO ePÓQIRSÓ€]ìu[%3|x] ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XXeXXXÔÔ€qXXXeÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XXeXqÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€3,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó ˜Ý ƒ /Q+ÝÔ d ÔÝ  Ýßq€] ;+'h 0  ` Á{ â Øã€E°°x@8[ x‰°°x@8qß((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d Ô C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\GRAPHICS\DRAFT.WPGÿWPC°°—D%&1—D%&1'Ø'3XXXX,,51ÿÿÿ.+3ÿ– `! ¦Ù'¦Ù'þi(²­(S)õc)°«)"G*"G*Óñ)Óñ)|œ)|œ)|œ)-). )–¨(k(×<(yÚ'›ô&[ú%Þ{%U %<I%&|”&¶'½‹'Üj'æ\'3'3'T‰'T‰'¦Ù'1ÿÿÿ3ÿÿÿN `"0(0(¡ª''r&è%äÌ%‚+&\O&=“&9Ê&6'b{'¶Ò'<](Ìx(0(0(13ÿê `#T#+T#+T#+'H+'H+'H+t+t+ÜO+ÜO+ÜO+»-++†×*\*U`*\ *\ *B$*B$**<*I*n*n*¸*¸*eÊ)eÊ)eÊ)±)œ™)¹„)öQ)5)4)gæ( ¨(:(:(R‘(R‘(R‘(§ã(§ã(ê)ê)ê)­¼)™á)•*“=*º“*èÃ*û×*ó*I+I+ÿ `$ñ c,ñ c,â h,Ý i,Ð u,Á ^,± H,¥ ;, $,s ,^ ,I ,0 , D, D,ƒ Ç,ƒ Ç,H -H -H -1 -û$-Ç-…û,-¹,ÐY,lñ+6 +ò++þ*5ò*5ò*?ý*?ý*Te+€¶+Ð ,/k,•,Åa,áF,Ñ,…¸+5O++ãÛ*[*|ú)±Ç)÷ƒ)„¸) J*p ¬*§ +Ç x+ k+; ~+ˆ Î+¯ ÷+Ç ,ñ c,ñ c,1ÿÿÿ3ÿÿÿN `%e É+e É+ˆ ¨+‘ ˆ+„ \+t #+M â* ²*Ê[*r?*Cl*œ*)í*œ†+××+àæ+ &, &,13ÿJ `&Û 50Û 50º 0ž ð/ Þ/U •// F/! ü. ˜. G.\ .\ .v õ-v õ-B Â-1 °-ôw-ôw- e- e- e- N- N- N-k ¢-k ¢-k ¢-š Ò-š Ò- k- k- k-\ -Ž â, [, [,R µ,R µ,¨ -¨ -¨ - -â ¯-} .} .( e.( e.( e.v ¸.v ¸.v ¸.ã $/ã $/ã $/Ë 5/Ë 5/¹ L/¹ L/¹ L/h ó.P ×. ˆ.É ’.± ž.“ ».` í.k 8/± €/Ì œ/è ­/ Ã/ Ã/( Ù/( Ù/ ç/ ç/ ç/ý 0ó 0Û 50Û 50ÿ `'·/·/»/û »/è Ã/Æ ‡/² k/’ J/t +/O /1 / õ.õ ù.Ñ /¹ ,/‹ U/j u/j u/Ê 0Ê 0 a0> †0« î0« î0 1 1z 1z 1z 1 ®0ð …0£ 50q h0` }0, À0 c0ò F0¶ ë/æ Ë/ö ¿/ ¡/ç s/Ô c/™ +/™ +/± /± /Ç /Ç /Ç /þ ;/ O/< |/< |/Ý à.Ý à.P m.P m.P m.Ž ..õ W.{ â.» #/á U/·/·/- ù- 0Ñ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"T$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝT^yúÿ  <<= 8ÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñOñ›ñOññOñ›ñOñÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€¼¬¼XXÔÓ'€Ð†XDè“X°œX'ÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑñPñÖ€ ÿÿÖñPñÑ  ÑÑ€&5Ñœñ]ññ]ññ]ññSñœñSñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñ]ññSññSññ]ññ]ñIn›€re:€€Estate€of€Louise€C.€Davis,à D à)Ð ° Ðñ]ññ]ñà Ø àDeceased.à ˆ àà à àà D à)€Ð À Ðñ]ññ]ñà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà D à)Ìñ]ññ]ñSARAH€FOSTER€KELLEY,à D à)Ð à0 Ðñ]ññ]ñà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà D à)Ìñ]ñœßt€ )>.*jxMÿù` `€€@EAù ` 8ttxPy1 ð È tß›ñ]ñà Ø àPetitioner/Appellant,à D à)à è àà @ àAppeal€No.Ð  P Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà D à)à è àà @ à01„A„01„9803„PB„00157Ð  ` Ðv.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà D à)Ð  p Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà D à)à è àà @ àDavidson€ProbateÐ 0 € ÐSARAH€HILL€MARTIN,à D à)à è àà @ àNo.€€95366Ð @  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà D à)Ìà Ø àRespondent/Appellee.à D à)à è àÐ `°  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà D à)ÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ€ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€DAVIDSON€COUNTY€PROBATE€COURTÌAT€€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€FRANK€G.€CLEMENT,€CHANCELLORÌÌÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÌÌDONALD€ARKOVITZÌ332€White€Bridge€RoadÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37209Ìà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€PETITIONER/APPELLANTÌÌÌÌÌGEORGE€H.€CATE,€JR.Ì95€White€Bridge€RoadÌSuite€503,€Cavalier€BuildingÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37205Ìà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€RESPONDENT/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÓ  ÓÌñSñÑ&5ÑÑ7€(XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑÑ&5ÑÑ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÑ  ÑñSñÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ h;¸67w ÐÑ&5ÑÑ7€(XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñSñÑ&5ÑÑ7€XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñSñÓ  ÓÔ€„Ë’„¼¼¬ÔòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÌÔ€¼¬¼„„Ë’ÔÓ€Óà Ø àThis€appeal€involves€the€validity€of€certain€transactions€entered€into€by€theÐ pÀ Ðholder€of€a€power€of€attorney.€€The€trial€court€set€aside€the€transactions€findingÏthat€the€attorney€in€fact€had€failed€to€rebut€the€presumption€of€undue€influenceÏwhich€arose€in€light€of€these€self„benefitting€transactions.€€We€affirm€the€decisionÏof€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.€€FACTSó óÐ P  ÐÓ† Óà Ø àThis€case€was€tried€by€agreement€of€all€parties€in€a€rather€ñOñœñOñunorthodoxñOñ›ñOñÏfashion.€€No€testimony€was€heard€but€all€documents€deemed€relevant€by€allÏparties,€together€with€affidavits,€pleadings,€and€interrogatories,€were€submitted€toÏthe€trial€court€under€a€waiver€by€all€parties€of€any€objections€thereto.€€Thus,€weÏhave,€as€did€the€trial€judge,€only€an€extensive€technical€record€containing€allÏmanner€of€objectional€material€with€a€stipulation€to€waive€all€ñOñœñOñobjections.ñJñ€€We€turnÏto€this€record€reviewing€the€trial€ñJññKñcñKññJñoñJññLñurt's€findings€of€fact€òòñLññMñde€novoóóñMññNñ,€with€aÐ %u Ðpresumption€of€correctness,€unless€the€preponderance€of€evidence€is€otherwise.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).ñNññMññLñóóñLññMññOñ›ñOñÌÌà Ø àñOñœñOñThisñOñ›ñOñ€case€arises€out€of€the€distribution€of€the€estate€of€Louise€Davis.€€Ms.ÏDavis€died€in€May€of€1990€leaving€a€will€dated€February€27,€1987.€€Ms.€Davis'Ïwill€left€one„sixth€shares€of€her€estate€to€six€people,€one€of€whom€is€Sarah€Kelley,Ïthe€appellant€in€this€action,€and€another,€Sarah€Hill€Martin,€the€appellee.€€ñOñœñOñMs.ñOñ›ñOñÏKelley€(hereinafter€"Appellant")€was€named€the€executrix€under€the€will.€€AfterÏthe€court€probated€the€will,€Ms.€Martin€(hereinafter€"Appellee")€petitioned€for€anÏinterim€accounting€of€the€assets€of€the€estate€specifically€calling€into€questionÏAppellant's€actions€under€a€power€of€attorney€she€held€for€Ms.€Davis€during€theÏlast€years€of€Ms.€Davis'€life.€€€ÌÌà Ø àIn€June€of€1987,€Ms.€Davis€executed€a€general€power€of€attorney€whichÏnamed€Appellant€attorney€in€fact€and€authorized€her€to€manage€Ms.€Davis'€"legalÏfinancial€or€other€affairs."€€It€is€clear€that€before€Ms.€Davis€died,€AppellantÏdevoted€much€time€to€her€and€performed€numerous€services€for€her.€€However,ÏAppellant€engaged€in€two€transactions€which€resulted€in€financial€benefit€toÐ Õ8%4@ Ðherself€and€which€have€been€subjected€to€judicial€scrutiny.ÌÌà Ø àFirst,€Appellant€used€Ms.€Davis'€funds€to€purchase€real€estate€next€door€toÏAppellant's€home€at€565€Whispering€Hills€Drive€for€$70,363.00.€€The€propertyÏwas€initially€conveyed€by€warranty€deed€to€both€Ms.€Davis€and€Appellant.€ÏHowever,€within€eleven€days€of€the€sale,€a€quitclaim€deed€was€executed€in€whichÏMs.€Davis€ñOñœñOñrelinquished€all€her€interest€in€the€property€such€that€fee€simple€titleÏwas€created€in€Appellant.€€The€second€disputed€transaction€involves€the€sale€ofÏMs.€Davis'€home€located€on€McMahon€Drive.€€After€selling€the€home€forÏ$60,923.52,€Appellant€deposited€$10,923.52€of€the€proceeds€of€the€sale€in€a€jointÏsurvivorship€bank€account€she€held€with€Ms.€Davis.€€Appellant€used€the€remainingÏ$50,000.00€to€purchase€a€certificate€of€deposit€titled€in€Appellant's€and€Ms.€Davis'Ïnames.€€Both€the€purchase€of€the€one€home€and€the€sale€of€the€other€took€place€inÏ1989,€less€than€a€year€before€Ms.€Davis'€death.€€When€Ms.€Davis€died,€the€fundsÏin€the€jointly€held€accounts€were€transferred€to€Appellant's€own€account.€€ÌÌà Ø àAs€the€court€stated€in€its€memorandum€opinion,€no€hearing€was€held€due€toÏthe€parties'€agreement€that€the€Probate€Court€should€decide€the€case€upon€a€reviewÏof€the€pleadings,€interrogatories€and€affidavits€contained€in€the€technical€recordÏwith€the€same€conclusive€effect€as€if€a€full€hearing€were€held.€€Both€Appellant€andÏDorothy€Parker,€a€live„in€nurse/assistant€employed€by€Appellant€to€care€for€Ms.ÏDavis,€submitted€affidavits€in€which€they€addressed€the€transactions€at€issue.€€TheÏtrial€judge€aptly€summarized€these€affidavits€by€saying€that€Appellant€and€Ms.ÏParker€"describe€in€detail€.€.€.€a€bizarre€series€of€events€which€made€the€sale€ofÏDavis'€home€on€McMahon€Avenue€necessary,€and€describe€further€theÏextraordinary€measures€which€they€took€to€'protect'€[Ms.€Davis]€from€her€familyÏmembers€who€in€their€opinion€were€trying€to€have€[Ms.]€Davis€declaredÏincompetent€and€placed€in€a€nursing€home."€€ÌÌà Ø àIn€Appellant's€affidavit,€she€states€that€she€was€called€to€Ms.€Davis'€rescueÏin€May€of€1989€after€Ms.€Davis€had€experienced€harassment€at€the€McMahonÏAvenue€address.€€Appellant€asserted€that€Ms.€Davis€had€no€desire€to€live€at€herÏhome€any€longer,€thus€prompting€Appellant€to€purchase€the€house€next€door€to€herÏown€at€565€Whispering€Hills€Drive€for€Ms.€Davis€to€live€in.€€Once€in€the€newÐ H9˜4B Ðhouse,€Ms.€Davis€told€Appellant€that€she€wanted€Appellant€to€be€"the€lady€of€theÏhouse€with€survivorship€rights€of€ownership."€€As€for€the€proceeds€from€the€saleÏof€Ms.€Davis'€McMahon€Avenue€home,€Appellant€stated€that€Ms.€Davis€visitedÏthe€bank€and€instructed€that€Appellant€be€on€the€joint€account€with€her.€€WhenÏAppellant€asked€Ms.€Davis€if€she€wanted€to€open€a€CD€in€the€name€of€her€nephewÏGrady€Curley,€Ms.€Davis€responded€that€"her€own€blood€had€tried€to€kill€her,€i.e.,Ïthrough€harassment,€and€she€stated€that€she€wanted€[Appellant]€to€have€theseÏmonies€at€her€death."€€ÌÌà Ø àMs.€Parker€gave€a€consistent€account€of€the€harassment€at€the€McMahonÏAvenue€address€and€Ms.€Davis'€consequent€desire€to€move€from€there.€€She€statedÏthat€Ms.€Davis€wanted€Appellant's€name€on€the€deed€at€the€Whispering€Hills€homeÏso€that€Appellant€"could€have€any€further€intruders€arrested€and€appear€againstÏthem€in€court."€€In€addition,€Ms.€Parker€stated€that€she€witnessed€Ms.€DavisÏvoicing€her€desire€that€Appellant€be€the€lady€of€the€house.ÌÌà Ø àThe€Probate€Judge€of€Davidson€County,€Honorable€Frank€G.€Clement,€Jr.,Ïfiled€an€exhaustive€and€detailed€memorandum€of€law€and€fact€concluding€that€theÏpower€of€attorney,€under€date€of€February€20,€1987,€created€a€confidentialÏrelationship€between€Mrs.€Davis€and€her€attorney€in€fact,€AppellantñGñ,€ñGñthat€theÏtransactions€in€issue€were€the€result€of€undue€influence€as€the€attorney€in€fact€hadÏnot€established€a€lack€of€undue€influence€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.ÌÌà Ø àThe€trial€court€made€the€following€observation€with€regard€to€Appellant'sÏevidence:Ìà8 Ø àÐ Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 àThe€evidence€shows€that€the€atmosphere€in€which€Davis€wasÏliving€was€permeated€with€an€attitude€that€there€was€a€broadÏconspiracy€afoot€to€declare€Davis€incompetent€and€have€her€placedÏin€a€nursing€home,€According€to€[Appellant]€and€Parker,€theÏconspirators€included€many€of€the€decedent's€family€members,Ïattorneys,€bank€employees,€neighbors,€maintenance€men,€andÏdoctors.€€[Appellant]€and€Parker,€who€was€acting€at€€[Appellant's]Ïdirection,€took€extreme€measures€to€segregate€the€decedent€fromÏanyone€that€they€considered€part€of€the€conspiracy.€€These€measuresÏincluded€installation€of€security€cameras€around€Davis'€home,Ïrelocation€of€Davis€to€an€apartment€and€ultimately€the€purchase€of€aÏhome€next€to€the€attorney€in€fact€and€the€sale€of€Davis'€home€onÐ Ð9 5? ÐMcMahon€Avenue.€€As€a€result,€while€under€the€control€of€theÏattorney€in€fact,€Davis€became€isolated€from€her€family.€€AttemptsÏat€contact€by€her€family€were€characterized€as€"harassment"€byÏ[Appellant].Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÓ€ñ"Óà Ø àÌà Ø àAs€stated,€the€court€held€that€a€confidential€relationship€existed€betweenÏAppellant€and€Ms.€Davis€and€that€Appellant€had€not€rebutted€by€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence€the€presumption€that€the€transactions€which€benefitted€herÏwere€the€product€of€undue€influence.€€The€court€voided€the€quitclaim€deed€fromÏMs.€Davis€which€had€conveyed€fee€simple€title€and€a€right€of€survivorship€toÏAppellant€in€the€property€located€at€565€Whispering€Hills€Drive€and€declared€thisÏproperty€to€be€an€asset€of€the€estate.€€The€court€reformed€the€initial€deed€whichÏreflected€the€grant€of€this€property€to€Louise€Davis€and€Appellant€by€removing€theÏname€of€Appellant.€€In€addition,€the€court€found€that€Appellant€must€return€to€Ms.ÏDavis'€estate€the€sum€of€$60,923.00€representing€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€Ms.ÏDavis'€home€on€McMahon€Avenue€plus€pre„judgment€interest€at€the€rate€of€tenÏpercent€per€annum€computed€from€and€after€May€3,€1990,€the€date€of€Ms.€Davis'Ïdeath€until€such€time€as€the€funds€are€restored€to€the€estate€account.€€ÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€ISSUEÐ p"À$ Ðó óà @` àÌÓ8+Óà Ø àAn€unrestricted€power€of€attorney,€as€a€matter€of€law,€creates€a€confidentialÏrelationship.€òòò ò€Matlock€v.€Simpsonó óóó,€902€S.W.2d€384,€386€(Tenn.€1995)€(citingÐ 5'…"* Ðòòò òMitchell€v.€Smithó óóó,€779€S.W.2d€384€(Tenn.€App.€1989)).€€In€Tennessee,€it€is€well„Ð Ð( $, Ðestablished€law€that€in€the€face€of€"the€existence€of€a€confidential€relationship,Ïfollowed€by€a€transaction€wherein€the€dominant€party€receives€a€benefit€from€theÏother€party,€a€presumption€of€undue€influence€arises,€that€may€be€rebutted€only€byÏclear€and€convincing€evidence€of€the€fairness€of€the€transaction."€€òòò òMatlockó óóó,€902Ð 3/ƒ*4 ÐS.W.2d€at€386.€€Since€Appellant,€as€the€attorney€in€fact€under€the€power€ofÏattorney€for€Ms.€Davis,€engaged€in€transactions€from€which€she€received€a€benefit,Ïa€presumption€of€undue€influence€was€created€by€operation€of€law.€€Therefore,€theÏsole€issue€in€this€matter€is€whether€or€not€Appellant€rebutted€this€presumption€byÏclear€and€convincing€evidence.€€ÌÐ Æ84@ Ðà Ø à"Proof€that€the€donor€received€independent€advice€respecting€theÏconsequences€and€advisability€of€the€gift€is€one€example,€but€not€the€only€one,€ofÏsuch€proof€of€fairness."€€òòò òRichmond€v.€Christianó óóó,€555€S.W.2d€105,€107„08€(Tenn.Ð à0 Ð1977).€€While€reaffirming€the€rule€that€proof€of€independent€advice€is€not€essentialÏin€every€case,€the€court€has€noted€that€it€may,€under€certain€circumstances,€be€"theÏonly€way€in€which€the€presumption€of€undue€influence€or€unfairness€can€beÏrebutted,€and€in€which€it€can€be€shown€that€the€donor€was€acting€independentlyÏand€with€full€appreciation€of€what€he€was€doing."€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€108€(quoting€òòò òRoberts€v.Ð Û+  ÐChaseó óóó,€25€Tenn.€App.€636,€166€S.W.2d€641€(1942)).€€In€òòò òRichmondó óóó,€the€court€heldÐ vÆ  Ðthat€proof€of€independent€advice€was€essential€to€rebut€the€presumption€under€itsÏparticular€facts€which€were€summarized€as€follows:ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àHere,€the€dominated€donor€made€a€gift€which€denuded€her€of€all€herÏrealty,€thus€impoverishing€her.€€Furthermore,€she€was€very€old€andÏphysically€debilitated,€and€was€feeble€to€the€point€of€needing€helpÏwith€virtually€every€personal€need.€€Her€son€was€living€with€herÏevery€day€in€her€house€and€she€appears€to€have€entrusted€to€him€herÏlife€and€all€of€her€belongings.€€Likewise€significant€is€the€fact€that,Ïwithout€apparent€reason,€Mrs.€Christian€suddenly€changed€her€planÏto€make€an€equal€division€of€her€real€estate€among€her€three€childrenÏand,€instead,€decided€to€make€a€wholesale€transfer€to€her€son.€Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌÓ€`3Óòòò òRichmondó óóó,€555€S.W.2dòòò ò€ó óóóat€109.€€Ð á 1  Ðà Ø àÌà Ø àIn€a€similar€case,€òòò òTurner€v.€Leathersó óóó,€the€court€considered€the€validity€ofÐ $d$ Ðcertain€transfers€made€by€a€donor€who€was€90€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€makingÏthe€gift€and€who€was€afflicted€with€Bright's€disease€and€arteriosclerosis.€€InÏaddition,€the€donor€was€very€feeble,€both€mentally€and€physically€and€wasÏcompletely€dependent€on€the€donee.€€The€court€held€as€follows:ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àUnder€the€circumstances€presented€in€this€cause,€on€account€of€theÏage,€physical€and€mental€deterioration€of€the€donor,€and€where€he€isÏunder€the€unquestioned€'dominion€and€control'€of€the€donee,€it€isÏnecessary€that€he€have€competent,€independent€advice,€free€from€theÏinfluence€of€the€donee,€in€order€for€the€gift€to€stand.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌÓ€8Óòòò òTurner€v.€Leathersó óóó,€€191€Tenn.€292,€232€S.W.2d€269,€271„72€(1950).€Ð o2¿-4 ÐÌà Ø àIn€making€its€decision€in€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€concluded€thatÏ"independent€advice€would€be€an€essential€component€of€the€proof€necessary€toÏovercome€the€presumption€of€undue€influence."€€We€agree.€€From€the€limitedÐ Ò8"4< Ðproof€that€we€have€here,€€this€case€involves€an€elderly€lady€who€spent€her€lastÏyears€governed€by€fears€which€were€shared€by€and€possibly€fueled€by€Appellant.€ÏAs€the€lower€court€observed,€nowhere€in€the€record€is€there€any€evidence€that€Ms.ÏDavis€was€given€independent€advice€from€a€disassociated€party€concerning€theseÏtransfers.€€Indeed,€the€only€allegations€made€by€Appellant€regarding€independentÏadvice€are€found€in€Appellant's€brief€where€she€merely€asserts€that€independentÏcounsel€was€available€to€Ms.€Davis€in€the€following€forms:€Detective€Jim€BallÏwho€recommended€security€measures€at€Ms.€Davis'€home,€attorney€GwenÏMcFarland€whom€Ms.€Davis€conferred€with,€John€Altschuler€of€Third€NationalÏBank€and€Holly€Garfinkle,€an€attorney€for€Department€of€Human€Services.ÌÌà Ø àWe€can€find€no€proof€in€the€record€that€Ms.€Davis€even€spoke€withÏindividuals€by€the€names€Jim€Ball€or€Holly€Garfinkle.€The€only€evidence€of€Ms.ÏDavis'€contact€with€the€other€two€persons€named€above€is€found€in€the€affidavitsÏof€Appellant€and€Ms.€Parker.€€In€their€affidavits,€both€women€state€that€GwenÏMcFarland€was€an€attorney€sent€to€interview€Ms.€Davis€and€that€Ms.€Davis€toldÏMs.€McFarland€that€she€wished€to€remain€in€her€own€home.€€It€seems€that€Ms.ÏMcFarland€was€associated€with€the€court€system€and€that€she€was€involved€for€theÏpurpose€of€determining€Ms.€Davis'€ability€to€live€alone.€€Mr.€Altschuler€is€referredÏto€as€being€with€Ms.€Davis'€family€members€who€were€harassing€her€and€invadingÏher€privacy.€€The€Appellant€states€that€Mr.€Altschuler€surrounded€Ms€Davis'€houseÏand€announced€that€he€would€get€in.€€Ms.€Parker's€affidavit€€implies€that€Mr.ÏAltschuler€was€trying€to€take€over€Ms.€Davis'€estate.ÌÌà Ø àStating€in€òòò òTurneró óóó€that€"independent€advice€means€that€the€adviser€must€notÐ ð*@&0 Ðonly€be€competent€but€independent,"€our€supreme€court€further€definedÏ"independent€advice"€as€follows:ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 à'Proper€independent€advice€in€this€connection€means€that€theÏdonor€had€the€[preliminary]€benefit€of€conferring€fully€and€privatelyÏupon€the€subject€of€his€intended€gift€with€a€person€who€was€not€onlyÏcompetent€to€inform€him€correctly€as€to€its€legal€effect,€but€who€wasÏfurthermore€so€disassociated€from€the€interests€of€the€donee€as€to€beÏin€a€position€to€advise€with€the€donor€impartially€and€confidently€asÏto€the€consequences€to€himself€.€.€.€of€his€proposed€benefactions.'€Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÓ€„BÓÌòòò òTurneró óóó,€232€S.W.2d€at€271€(citations€omitted).€€€Most€significantly,€this€definitionÐ Ã84? Ðassumes€that€the€independent€advice€pertains€to€the€gift€from€the€donor€to€theÏdonee.€€A€donor's€exposure€to€people€other€than€the€donee€is€insufficient.€€ThereÏis€simply€no€evidence€in€this€record€nor€is€there€even€an€allegation€that€Ms.€DavisÏconferred€with€anyone€upon€the€subject€of€her€intended€gift.€€€Moreover,€there€isÏno€other€clear€and€convincing€evidence€suggesting€that€these€two€transactionsÏwere€fair.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€œCñRñONCLUSIONñRññQñonclusionñQñó óñQñ›ñQñÐ Ø(  ÐÓÒFÓÌà Ø àA€confidential€relationship€between€Ms.€Davis€and€Appellant€was€createdÏas€a€matter€of€law€when€Appellant€was€given€the€power€of€attorney€for€Ms.€Davis.€ÏWe€hold€that€Appellant€failed€to€rebut€the€presumption€of€undue€influence€thatÏarose€when€Appellant€used€her€position€as€attorney€in€fact€to€obtain€a€benefit€fromÏMs.€Davis.€€The€trial€court€is€therefore€affirmed€in€all€respects.€€The€costs€of€thisÏappeal€should€be€taxed€to€Appellant.€ÌÌÌÓ€Óà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà D à_______________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà D àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRES.€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌñIñAnd,€as€a€matter€of€interest€in€view€of€the€odd€way€this€case€was€tried,€is€our€deÏnovo€review€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€or€is€it€pure€de€novoÏwith€no€presumption.€€There€is,€after€all,€nothing€that€the€chancellor€heard€and€weÏare€seeing€in€the€record€exactly€the€same€thing€that€he€saw€and€it€might€be€well€toÏtry€to€make€a€determination€of€what€our€standard€of€review€is,€given€these€peculiarÏcircumstances.€€Otherwise€it's€ready€to€go.€ñIñ