ÿWPC 2‘‰¼tSpX®¿!ü ¤=3íÊÔ;!¢ræ0º•ïØ'YS.L¼<Ò63ök«ßÝç^ q”£½KCf`àê6åÆÅ.&5Á’ -µë* 1¤e{°0‹§ÓTò;`!»µæ+•ÊÉ×?h½˜?£6­Û'­E:—ÓP-Gh'bTsAƒ-líâÔp ’©Ê#«Yo:üdf¹ý$§H|È”¼ †¼14º6L† Ô„}r’+D&N³Úe§…VC ›™æ©Ðr ­9±Ûöð8¤vý^†À ›öáiËi'?­0ð*ôcÛyÈÉè/?!Âu$ò/NÀL*†ÙÔ–J#îj® –ì ÷¿Æ,Ä ç½6oµ ií¤‘š H‹ªÛÄðW4`š'ŽÊ¤:p´^`£Lªãsdìy½-g›_¢ ûŠÍv\Q ¯B ö^[š4o?n»§…¯Ö2FqY‹ï|d~}0¡7À2hŽ!¹ÚÎTíU¦…þ…E#,UÛaW§e““ׄ.KàëìãÕƒ4k[³Ü:œ9 ©Eâ©Ô¦'uG¿0}€§âýH?Y¥Ñï!/ÈÉ–['s«C@ð$ ?ßó|¯NœXàýªc´z†sCob#Á\ % # 0ˆ+ UN³ ^  w z Ò‹ 4] q € m‚ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ë N± 0D³³E÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷bùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùù 0ë Bìì 0¤  D3­ D-à 0K   ASXÆ« 0¤q 0D A«Y˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0» (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¨“-s  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptš‚,-B011C83|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2ª—$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÅ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûò»»Ô d(|3‰g$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÅ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰g$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÅ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÅ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼VÅ»»»ÔÑ8€ XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î\dVÅÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼VÅ»îî\d #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Ó€September€3,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X X»¼VÅÔÌò òÔ#†¼VÅ»XX ÷#ÔTHE€ESTATE€OF€Ô_ÔALLINEÔ_Ô€ELIZABETH€GLASGOW,€Ð úJ ÐCLARENCE€E.€Ô_ÔBIGGSÔ_Ô,€òòet€al.óó€v.€VIRGIL€S.€Ô_ÔWHITTUMÔ_Ô,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X X»¼VÅÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court,€Probate€Division€for€Sumner€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€2000P„12€€€€€€C.L.€Rogers,€Chancellor€Ð ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02263„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€19,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ԀР¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓProponents€appeal€judgment€of€the€trial€court€on€a€jury€verdict€against€the€Will€on€a€finding€of€undueÐ ŒÜ Ðinfluence€by€the€proponents€upon€the€testatrix.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð xÈ ÐÓsÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼VÅ»àX #ÔÔ‡X X.¼VÅÔWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòóóBòòENóó€H.€Ô_ÔCòòANTRELLÔ_Ôóó,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€M.S.€andÐ (x ÐòòóóÔ_ÔJ.S.Ô_Ô€DòòANIELóó,€SòòPóó.€J.,€joined.Ð d ÐÌJames€Robin€Ô_ÔMcKinneyÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Virgil€S.€Ô_ÔWhittumÔ_Ô.Ð ì< ÐÌPaul€T.€Ô_ÔHouschÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Clarence€E.€Ô_ÔBiggsÔ_Ô,€Raymond€Glasgow,€Jr.,Ð Ä ÐÔ_ÔR.B.Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔBiggsÔ_Ô,€Richard€Ô_ÔBiggsÔ_Ô,€and€William€Ray€Ô_ÔBiggsÔ_Ô.Ð ° ÐÓèÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼VÅ»XX #ÔÔ‡X X»¼VÅÔÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼VÅ»XX Î #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X X»¼VÅÔà  àÔ_ÔAllineÔ_Ô€Elizabeth€Glasgow€was€married€to€Raymond€Glasgow€for€28€years€prior€to€his€deathÐ `!°  Ðon€February€24,€1999.€€No€children€were€born€to€the€marriage,€but€Ô_ÔAllineÔ_Ô€Glasgow€had€five€childrenÐ L"œ! Ðby€a€previous€marriage:€€Richard€Ô_ÔBiggsÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔR.B.Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔBiggsÔ_Ô,€Willie€Ô_ÔBiggsÔ_Ô,€Clarence€Ô_ÔBiggsÔ_Ô,€and€Norma€JeanÐ 8#ˆ" ÐÔ_ÔBiggsÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWhittumÔ_Ô.€Raymond€Glasgow€had€one€child€by€a€previous€marriage,€Raymond€Glasgow,€Jr.€Ð $$t# ÐThe€former€husband€of€Ô_ÔAllineÔ_Ô€Glasgow,€Clarence€E.€Ô_ÔBiggsÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€had€a€child€by€a€previous€marriage,Ð %` $ ÐHarold€Ô_ÔBiggsÔ_Ô,€who€lived€in€Florida.€€Appellant,€Norma€Jean€Ô_ÔBiggsÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWhittumÔ_Ô€was€married€toÐ ü%L!% ÐAppellant€Virgil€Ô_ÔWhittumÔ_Ô.€€Ô_ÔAllineÔ_Ô€Glasgow€suffered€from€chronic€lymphocytic€leukemia,€asthma,Ð è&8"& Ðhypertension,€and€congestive€heart€failure.€€Following€the€death€of€Raymond€Glasgow€on€FebruaryÐ Ô'$#' Ð24,€1999,€Ô_ÔAllineÔ_Ô€Glasgow€moved€to€the€home€of€Virgil€and€Norma€Jean€Ô_ÔWhittumÔ_Ô€and,€on€March€3,Ð À($( Ð1999,€Norma€Jean€Ô_ÔWhittumÔ_Ô€called€Attorney€Robert€Rutherford€to€set€up€an€appointment€for€Ô_ÔAllineÔ_ÔÐ ¬)ü$) ÐGlasgow€to€make€a€will.€€At€a€meeting€that€same€day€between€Robert€Rutherford,€Virgil€Ô_ÔWhittumÔ_ÔÐ ˜*è%* Ðand€Ô_ÔAllineÔ_Ô€Glasgow,€a€power€of€attorney€was€prepared€whereby€Virgil€Ô_ÔWhittumÔ_Ô€was€to€becomeÐ „+Ô&+ Ðattorney€in€fact€for€Ô_ÔAllineÔ_Ô€Glasgow.€€Virgil€Ô_ÔWhittumÔ_Ô€then€drove€Ô_ÔAllineÔ_Ô€Glasgow€to€a€nearby€funeralÐ p,À', Ðhome€where€she€executed€the€power€of€attorney.€€Mr.€Rutherfordððs€partner,€Ralph€DeMarco,€actuallyÐ \-¬(-ýJ ÐÔ_ Ôprepared€the€will€from€notes€taken€by€Mr.€Rutherford€and,€on€March€16,€1999,€Virgil€WhittumÐ ° Ðescorted€Alline€Glasgow€to€the€office€of€Mr.€Rutherford€where€she€executed€a€Last€Will€andÐ œì ÐTestament,€devising€all€of€her€property€to€Norma€Jean€Whittum€and€naming€Virgil€Whittum€asÐ ˆØ Ðexecutor.€€Both€Virgil€Whittum€and€Norma€Jean€Whittum€were€aware€of€the€contents€of€the€will€atÐ tÄ Ðthe€time€it€was€executed€by€Alline€Glasgow.Ð `° ÐÌà  àAlline€Glasgow€died€November€4,€1999,€and€the€will€prepared€by€Attorneys€Rutherford€andÐ 8 ˆ ÐDeMarco€was€offered€for€probate.€€Three€of€the€brothers€of€Norma€Jean€Biggs€Whittum€contestedÐ $ t Ðthe€will€and,€following€a€three€day€jury€trial,€the€trial€judge€directed€a€verdict€for€the€proponents€onÐ  ` Ðall€issues€involving€fraud€and€submitted€the€case€to€the€jury€on€allegations€of€unsoundness€of€mindÐ ü L  Ðand€undue€influence.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€proponents€on€questions€ofÐ è 8  Ðunsoundness€of€mind,€but€returned€a€verdict€against€the€will€on€issues€of€undue€influence,€therebyÐ Ô$  Ðfinding€that€the€will€was€the€product€of€undue€influence€by€both€Virgil€Whittum€and€Norma€JeanÐ À  ÐBiggs€Whittum.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€overruled€the€proponentsðð€motion€for€a€new€trial€and€they€timely€appealed.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àAppellants€assert€four€issues€on€appeal:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà ` àI.à ¸ àWhether€the€Trial€Court€Erred€in€Correctly€Charging€the€Jury€on€theÐ 4„ ÐLegal€Standard€of€Undue€Influence€and€Whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€Denying€theÐ  p ÐSpecial€Jury€Request.Ð \Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àII.à ¸ àWhether€the€Trial€Court€Erred€in€Failing€to€Grant€a€Directed€VerdictÐ øH Ðon€Behalf€of€the€Appellant,€Virgil€Whittum.Ðä4Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àIII.à ¸ àWhether€the€Trial€Court€Erred€in€Allowing€the€Rebuttal€Testimony€ofÐ Ð  ÐL.Ralph€DeMarco,€Esquire.м Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àIV.à0¸ Ð Ð àWhether€there€was€Material€Evidence€to€Support€the€Juryððs€Verdict.Шø¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà  àAs€review€in€the€Court€of€Appeals€on€issues€II€and€IV€asserted€by€Appellants€involve€onlyÐ €Ð Ðquestions€of€law,€it€is€well€to€recognize€controlling€law:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€this€case,€only€the€plaintiff€and€the€defendant€testified€concerning€the€factsÐ D!” Ðof€the€accident.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€does€not€reweigh€the€evidence€or€reevaluateÐ 0"€  Ðwitnessðð€credibility€in€an€appeal€from€a€jury€verdict.€€òòGrissom€v.€Metropolitan€GovððtÐ #l! Ðof€Nashvilleóó,€817€S.W.2d€679€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€This€Court€on€appeal€is€requiredÐ $X" Ðto€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€favoring€the€prevailing€party,Ð ô$D # Ðdiscard€all€contrary€evidence,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€to€uphold€the€juryððsÐ à%0!$ Ðverdict€and€set€aside€the€jury€verdict€only€when€there€is€no€material€evidence€toÐ Ì&"% Ðsupport€it.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€òòSmith€County€v.€Eatherlyóó,€820€S.W.2d€366€(Tenn.€App.Ð ¸'#& Ð1991),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€__€U.S.€__,€112€S.Ct.€1762,€118€L.Ed.2d€424€(1992);€òòGlover€v.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐOakwood€Terrace€Associated€IIóó,€816€S.W.2d€43€(Tenn.€App.€1991).Ð)à$(Ð Ð  ÐÌòòWitter€v.€Nesbitóó,€878€S.W.2d€116,€121€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).Ð h+¸&* Їà  àAppellate€review€of€the€action€of€the€trial€court€in€declining€to€grant€a€motion€for€a€directedÐ ° Ðverdict€involves€only€a€question€of€law.€€òòIngram€v.€Earthmanóó,€993€S.W.2d€611,€626€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð œì Ð1998)€(appeal€denied€and€rehearing€of€denial€of€appeal€denied,€certiorari€denied,€528€U.S.€986,€120Ð ˆØ ÐS.Ct.€445,€145€L.Ed.2d€362).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àWhether€ð ðmaterial€evidenceðð€exists€in€the€record€sufficient€to€submit€a€case€to€the€jury€isÐ L œ Ðlikewise€a€question€of€law.€€òòCude€v.€Culbersonóó,€209€S.W.2d€506,€513€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1947).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThis€Court€has€held:Ð  ` Ðà8  àOf€course,€reviews€under€ð ðpreponderance€of€the€evidenceðð€and€ð ðmaterial€evidenceððÐ ü L  Ðtests€are€not€similar€and,€in€fact,€are€poles€apart.€€Under€the€preponderance€ofÐ è 8  Ðevidence€test,€the€evidence€is€weighed€by€the€reviewing€Court€on€an€evidentiary€factÐ Ô$  Ðscale.€€Whichever€side€of€the€fact€scale€is€heavier€will€be€the€finding€of€the€Court.€Ð À  ÐWhere€the€review€is€on€the€test€of€ð ðmaterial€evidenceðð€no€scale€of€evidence€is€usedÐ ¬ü  Ðby€the€reviewing€court.€€It€is€simply€a€search€of€the€record€to€ascertain€if€materialÐ ˜è  Ðevidence€is€present€to€support€the€verdict.€€It€matters€not€a€whit€where€the€weight€orÐ „Ô  Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€lies€under€a€material€evidence€review.€€The€reviewingÐ pÀ ÐCourt€might€well€be€of€the€opinion€that€the€evidence€preponderates€heavily€againstÐ \¬ Ðthe€judgment€below,€but€under€a€material€evidence€review,€if€material€evidence€isÐ H˜ Ðfound€to€support€the€judgment,€that€is,€evidence€from€which€a€trier€of€facts,€if€he€wereÐ 4„ Ðinclined€to€believe€it,€could€reach€the€conclusion€reached,€then,€the€judgment€basedÐ  p Ðthereon€must€be€affirmed.€€That€is€why€a€ð ðmaterial€evidenceðð€test€is€one€of€law;€notÐ  \ Ðof€fact.€€To€search€for€the€presence€of€evidence€is€a€task€of€law.€€To€weigh€evidenceÐ øH Ðis€a€task€of€fact.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌòòHohenberg€Bros.€Co.€v.€Missouri€Pac.€R.€Co.óó,€586€S.W.2d€117,€119„20€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€record€in€this€case€is€replete€with€ð ðmaterial€evidenceðð€which€would€support€a€jury€verdictÐ ”ä Ðon€the€undue€influence€issue€whether€that€verdict€had€been€for€the€contestants€or€the€proponents.€Ð €Ð ÐThe€jury€verdict€having€been€for€the€contestants€and€against€the€proponents€and€that€verdict€havingÐ l¼ Ðbeen€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€we€are€without€authority€on€appeal€to€disturb€the€verdict.€€T.R.A.P.Ð X ¨ Ð13(d).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àIn€order€for€this€Court€to€hold€that€no€material€evidence€supported€the€verdict,€or€that€VirgilÐ #l! ÐWhittum€was€entitled€to€a€directed€verdict,€we€would€have€to€hold€that€as€a€matter€of€law,€AllineÐ $X" ÐGlasgow€received€independent€legal€advice€and€that€the€power€of€attorney€given€to€Virgil€WhittumÐ ô$D # ÐMarch€3,€1999€did€not€trigger€a€presumption€of€undue€influence.€€The€record€does€not€support€suchÐ à%0!$ Ðfindings.€€The€record€shows€that€it€was€Norma€Jean€Biggs€Whittum€who€called€Mr.€Rutherford€toÐ Ì&"% Ðarrange€a€will€for€Alline€Glasgow.€€Mr.€Rutherford€had€previously€represented€Virgil€Whittum€inÐ ¸'#& Ðother€matters.€€The€draft€of€the€will€not€prepared€by€Rutherford€but€rather€by€DeMarco€was€sent€notÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€Alline€Glasgow€but€to€Virgil€Whittum€who€read€the€will€to€her.€€Attorney€DeMarco€gave€noÐ )à$( Ðadvice€to€Alline€Glasgow€and€discussions€between€Robert€Rutherford€and€Alline€Glasgow€wereÐ |*Ì%) Ðlimited€to€a€brief€conference€on€March€3,€1999,€when€Virgil€Whittum€had€brought€Mrs.€Glasgow€toÐ h+¸&* Ðhis€office€and€there€obtained€her€power€of€attorney.€€Virgil€Whittum€used€the€power€of€attorney€toÐ ° Ðsell€the€real€estate€belonging€to€Alline€Glasgow€at€less€than€its€appraised€value€and€promptlyÐ œì Ðdeposited€the€proceeds€of€the€sale€in€the€joint€bank€account€of€Virgil€Whittum€and€Norma€Jean€BiggsÐ ˆØ ÐWhittum.€€These€actions,€while€not€conclusive,€clearly€triggered€a€charge€to€the€jury€as€to€theÐ tÄ Ðpresumption€of€òòMatlock€v.€Simpsonóó,€902€S.W.2d€384€(Tenn.€1985).€€While€this€case€was€pendingÐ `° Ðon€appeal€the€supreme€court,€on€May€23,€2002,€rendered€its€opinion€in€òòChildress€v.€Currieóó,€74Ð L œ ÐS.W.3d€324€(Tenn.€2002),€restricting€the€scope€of€the€òòMatlockóó€presumption€to€exclude€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðunexercised€power€of€attorney.€€The€exclusion€is€inapplicable€at€bar€since€Virgil€Whittum€exercisedÐ $ t Ðthe€power€of€attorney€to€dispose€of€the€major€asset€of€Alline€Glasgow€and€deposit€the€resultingÐ  ` Ðproceeds€in€the€joint€account€of€Virgil€and€Norma€Jean€Whittum.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àSaid€the€Court:ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àThe€issue€of€undue€influence€should€ð ðbe€decided€by€the€applicationÐ ¬ü  Ðof€sound€principles€and€good€sense€to€the€facts€of€each€case.ðð€€òòId.óó€atÐ ˜è  Ð388€(quoting€òòHalle€v.€Summerfieldóó,€199€Tenn.€445,€454,€287€S.W.2dÐ „Ô  Ð57,€61€(1956)).€€A€careful€reading€of€òòMatlock€óóand€òòMitchellóó€shows€thatÐ pÀ Ðan€unexercised€power€of€attorney€does€not€in€and€of€itself€create€aÐ \¬ Ðconfidential€relationship€and€we€clarify€òòMatlockóó€to€the€extent€itÐ H˜ Ðsuggests€otherwise.€€The€core€definition€of€a€confidential€relationshipÐ 4„ Ðrequires€proof€of€dominion€and€control.€€òòMatlockóó,€902€S.W.2d€15Ð  p Ð385„86;€òòMitchellóó,€779€S.W.2d€384€at€389.€€When€an€unrestrictedÐ  \ Ðpower€of€attorney€is€executed€but€has€not€yet€been€exercised,€goodÐ øH Ðsense€dictates€that€there€exists€no€dominion€and€control€and€thereforeÐ ä4 Ðno€confidential€relationship€based€solely€on€the€existence€of€theÐ Ð  Ðpower€of€attorney.€€In€òòMatlockóó,€there€was€additional€evidence€ofÐ ¼  Ðdominion€and€control€based€upon€the€attorney„client€relationship€andÐ ¨ø Ðthe€personal€execution€by€the€attorney€of€the€will€and€the€power€ofÐ ”ä Ðattorney.€€òòMatlockóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€385„86.€€In€òòMitchellóó,€the€nieceÐ €Ð Ðacted€as€caretaker€to€her€ailing€uncle,€chose€an€attorney€for€him,€droveÐ l¼ Ðher€uncle€to€the€attorneyððs€office€where€he€signed€the€power€ofÐ X ¨ Ðattorney€and€will€in€her€van,€and€began€exercising€her€power€ofÐ D!” Ðattorney€before€her€uncleððs€death.€€òòMitchellóó,€779€S.W.2d€at€386„87.Ð0"€ ` x` x Ðà  àòòChildressóó,€74€S.W.2d€at€329.Ð #l! ÐÌòòóóVirgil€Whittum€was€therefore€required€to€bring€forth€clear€and€convincing€evidence€to€rebut€theÐ ô$D # Ðpresumption€of€undue€influence€evidenced€by€the€execution€of€the€power€of€attorney€and€theÐ à%0!$ Ðsubsequent€use€thereof€to€the€benefit€of€Virgil€and€Norma€Jean€Biggs€Whittum€and€to€the€detrimentÐ Ì&"% Ðof€Alline€Glasgow.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àClearly,€there€is€material€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€verdict€of€the€jury€and€the€trialÐ )à$( Ðcourt€correctly€denied€a€directed€verdict€to€Virgil€Whittum.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àIn€their€third€issue,€Appellants€assert€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€allowing€theÐ ° Ðrebuttal€testimony€of€Attorney€L.€Ralph€DeMarco.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÐ œì Ðallowing€the€testimony.€€Attorney€Robert€Rutherford€had€implied€that€Attorney€L.€Ralph€DeMarcoÐ ˆØ Ðwas€present€at€his€March€3,€1999€conference€with€Alline€Glasgow.€€DeMarco,€in€the€rebuttalÐ tÄ Ðtestimony,€asserted€that€the€first€time€he€had€ever€seen€Mrs.€Glasgow€was€at€the€execution€of€the€willÐ `° Ðon€March€16,€1999.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€has€wide€discretion€in€allowing€or€disallowing€rebuttal€testimony.€€òòCoates€v.Ð $ t ÐThompsonóó,€666€S.W.2d€69,€76€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€Such€discretionary€action€will€not€beÐ  ` Ðdisturbed€on€appeal€in€the€absence€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòJohns€v.€Caldwellóó,€601€S.W.2d€37Ð ü L  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980).Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€allowing€the€rebuttal€testimony€of€Mr.€DeMarco.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAppellant€complains€of€the€correctness€of€the€trial€court€charge€to€the€jury€on€undue€influenceÐ ˜è  Ðand€of€the€refusal€of€the€trial€court€to€grant€their€special€request€for€a€jury€instruction.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àAs€to€undue€influence,€the€trial€court€charged€the€jury:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€this€action,€the€plaintiff,€Clarence€Biggs,€R.B.€Biggs€and€Richard€BiggsÐ 4„ Ðhave€the€burden€of€establishing,€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€all€of€the€factsÐ  p Ðnecessary€to€prove€unsound€mind€and€undue€influence€by€Norma€Jean€Whittum.€Ð \Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€law€does€presume€undue€influence€by€Virgil€Whittum,€placing€the€burdenÐ øH Ðof€proof€upon€Virgil€Whittum,€as€will€be€explained€to€you€later€in€these€instructions.Ðä4Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€burden€of€proof€regarding€the€claim€of€unsound€mind€and€undueÐ Ð  Ðinfluence€by€Norma€Jean€Whittum€requires€the€burden€and€use€of€the€termÐ ¼  Ðð ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence.ðð€€That€means€that€amount€of€evidence€that€causesÐ ¨ø Ðyou€to€conclude€that€an€allegation€is€probably€true.€.€.€.ДäÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð €Ð Ðà8  àà ` àA€will€may€not€be€enforced€if€it€is€brought€by€undue€influence.€€UndueÐ l¼ Ðinfluence€is€the€overcoming€of€the€mind€of€the€person€making€the€will€by€acts€orÐ X ¨ Ðconduct€of€another€person.€€Mere€general€influence€of€another€person€that€does€notÐ D!” Ðeffect€the€act€of€making€the€will€is€not€undue€influence.€€To€be€undue€influence,€theÐ 0"€  Ðinfluence€must€amount€to€coercion€that€destroys€the€freedom€of€choice€of€the€personÐ #l! Ðmaking€the€will.€€It€substitutes€the€wishes€or€desires€of€another€person€and€compelsÐ $X" Ðthe€maker€of€the€will€to€dispose€of€property€in€a€way€that€would€not€have€been€doneÐ ô$D # Ðotherwise.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àIn€determining€the€issue€of€undue€influence,€you€may€consider,€among€otherÐ Ì&"% Ðthings,€the€following:и'#&Ð Ð  Ðà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àOne,€the€terms€of€the€will€unduly€benefit€the€chief€beneficiaryÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€the€will.Ð)à$(` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àTwo,€are€the€terms€of€the€will€different€from€the€expressedÐ |*Ì%) Ðintentions€of€the€maker€of€the€will.Ðh+¸&*` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àThree,€did€the€chief€beneficiaryððs€relationship€to€the€personÐ ° Ðmaking€the€will€give€the€beneficiary€an€opportunity€to€influence€theÐ œì Ðterms€of€the€will.ЈØ` x` x Ðà8  àà ` àDid€the€mental€and€physical€condition€of€the€maker€of€the€will€allow€theÐ tÄ Ðmakerððs€freedom€of€choice€to€be€overcome€by€the€action€of€others.Ð`°Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àDid€the€beneficiary€of€the€will€actively€take€part€in€determining€the€provisionsÐ L œ Ðof€the€will€or€in€causing€it€to€be€executed€or€signed.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA€confidential€relationship€exists€whenever€the€trust€and€confidence€of€oneÐ $ t Ðperson€is€placed€in€the€honesty€and€faithfulness€of€another.€€If€you€find€that€aÐ  ` Ðconfidential€relationship€existed€between€the€person€making€the€will,€Ms.€AllineÐ ü L  ÐGlasgow€and€Norma€Jean€Whittum,€and€you€further€find€that€Norma€Jean€WhittumÐ è 8  Ðwas€active€in€causing€the€will€to€be€made€and€unduly€profited€from€it,€there€isÐ Ô$  Ðpresumption€that€the€will€was€obtained€by€the€undue€influence€of€Norma€JeanÐ À  ÐWhittum.Ьü Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThis€type€presumption€may€be€overcome€only€if€Norma€Jean€Whittum€provesÐ ˜è  Ðby€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€making€of€the€will€was€not€the€result€ofÐ „Ô  Ðundue€influence.ÐpÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àAs€a€matter€of€law,€I€further€instruct€you€that€this€will€is€presumed€to€haveÐ \¬ Ðbeen€obtained€by€the€undue€influence€of€Virgil€S.€Whittum,€due€to€the€existence€ofÐ H˜ Ðthe€power€of€attorney€granted€by€the€decedent€to€Virgil€S.€Whittum.Ð4„Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àNow,€this€type€presumption€may€be€overcome€if€it€is€shown€by€Virgil€S.Ð  p ÐWhittum,€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€that€the€decedent€received€independentÐ  \ Ðadvice€regarding€the€willððs€provisions€from€a€disinterested€person€having€fullÐ øH Ðknowledge€of€the€facts€and/or€clear€and€convincing€evidence€of€the€fairness€of€theÐ ä4 Ðtransaction.€€That€is€fairness€to€the€legal€rights€and€true€wishes€of€Alline€Glasgow,Ð Ð  Ðthe€decedent.м Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àTo€prove€an€issue€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€that€party€having€thatÐ ¨ø Ðburden€must€clearly€show€that€thereððs€no€serious€or€substantial€doubt€about€theÐ ”ä Ðconclusions€that€the€party€is€attempting€to€prove.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€charge,€as€given€by€the€trial€court,€is€a€correct€statement€of€the€law€of€Tennessee.€Ð X ¨ ÐAppellants€assert€that€since€the€power€of€attorney€nominated€Virgil€Whittum€as€attorney€in€fact€andÐ D!” Ðthe€will€left€the€bulk€of€the€estate€to€Norma€Jean€Biggs€Whittum,€the€power€of€attorney€did€notÐ 0"€  Ðtrigger€the€presumption€of€undue€influence€because€Norma€Jean€Biggs€Whittum€did€not€hold€theÐ #l! Ðpower€of€attorney.€€This€assertion€is€based€upon€the€erroneous€assumption€that€undue€influence€mustÐ $X" Ðbe€exercised€directly€by€the€donee.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àà ` àIt€is€immaterial€whether€undue€influence€is€exercised€directly€or€indirectly.€Ð Ì&"% ÐòòBrown€v.€Cobbóó,€53€N.M.€169,€172,€204€P.2d€264,€266€(1949).€€In€determiningÐ ¸'#& Ðwhether€undue€influence€is€present,€a€central€focus€is€on€the€means€used€and€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðeffect€upon€the€donor.€€òòSee€McElhinney€v.€Kellyóó,€67€N.M.€399,€404,€356€P.2d€113,Ð )à$( Ð116€(1960)€(ð ðIt€is€not€the€nature€and€extent€of€the€influence,€but€its€effect€upon€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðmind€of€the€testator€which€determines€whether€it€is€undue€influence.ðð)€(quoting€1Ð h+¸&* ÐWilliam€J.€Bowe€&€Douglas€H.€Parker,€òòPage€on€Willsóó€ðð€15.6€at€724);€òòIn€re€Estate€ofÐ ° ÐGonzalesóó,€108€N.M.€at€586,€775€P.2d€at€1303€(ultimate€issue€is€effect€of€influence€onÐ œì Ðdonor).€€The€underlying€theory€of€the€doctrine€is€that€the€donor€is€induced€by€variousÐ ˆØ Ðmeans€to€execute€an€instrument€that,€in€reality,€is€the€will€of€another€substituted€forÐ tÄ Ðthat€of€the€donor.€€òòIn€re€Will€of€Ferrillóó,€97€N.M.€at€398,.€640€P.2d€at€504€(Sutin,€J.,Ð `° Ðspecially€concurring).€€We€specifically€reject€the€contention€that€a€beneficiary€mustÐ L œ Ðbe€the€one€who€exerts€the€undue€influence.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌòòMontoya€v.€Torresóó,€823€P.2d€905,€909„10€(N.M.€1991).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àIn€a€similar€context,€it€has€been€held:Ð è 8  ÐÌà8  àà ` àWe€next€consider€whether€the€contract€between€the€Kennedys€and€ThomsenÐ À  Ðcan€be€set€aside€on€the€basis€of€the€undue€influence€of€Francis€Petersen.€€UndueÐ ¬ü  Ðinfluence€by€a€third€person€renders€a€transaction€voidable€at€the€instance€of€the€victimÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€undue€influence€if€the€other€contracting€party€had€reason€to€know€of€the€undueÐ „Ô  Ðinfluence.€€òòSeeóó€Restatement€Contracts€(Second)€ðððð€164€(comment€òòeóó),€177€(commentÐ pÀ Ðòòcóó)€(1981).€€In€the€present€case€the€trial€court€found€that€Kennedys€had€reason€to€knowÐ \¬ Ðof€the€undue€influence€practiced€on€Thomsen€by€Francis€Petersen.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌòòKennedy€v.€Thomsenóó,€320€N.W.2d€657,€659€(Iowa€App.€1982).Ð  p ÐÌà  àAs€observed€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€Alabama:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà ` àIt€is€not€essential€that€the€grantees€should€have€personally€had€any€connectionÐ Ð  Ðwith€the€transaction.€€If€another,€standing€in€confidential€relation€to€the€grantor€inÐ ¼  Ðposition€to€exert€a€dominant€influence,€employs€such€influence€in€behalf€of€another,Ð ¨ø Ðhowever€innocent,€the€result€is€the€same,€where€the€grantee€parts€with€nothing,€as€inÐ ”ä Ðcase€of€a€gift.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌòòRoper€v.€Lenoiróó,€11€So.2d€361,€362€(Ala.€1943).Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àòòSee€also€óóRestatement€Contracts€(2d)€ðððð€164,€177.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àAside€from€the€fact€that€the€charge€as€given€by€the€trial€judge€provided€that€mere€influenceÐ $X" Ðwas€not€sufficient€to€vitiate€the€will,€the€difficulty€with€the€special€request€relative€to€the€right€to€fairÐ ô$D # Ðargument€and€persuasion€in€order€to€induce€a€will€is€that€no€evidence€appears€in€the€record€of€anyÐ à%0!$ Ðsuch€persuasive€efforts€by€Norma€Jean€Biggs€Whittum.€€She€testified:Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àNow,€your€mother,€when€your€father€died,€your€stepfather,€you€andÐ ¤(ô#' ÐVirgil€took€control€of€your€motherððs€affairs,€didnððt€you?Ð)à$(Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àVirgil€took€control€of€my€motherððs€affairs.€€I€told€Mama€that€I€didnððtÐ |*Ì%) Ðwant€to€have€anything€to€do€with€it,€because€I€knowed€how€the€boys€was,€and€she€saidÐ h+¸&* ÐI€donððt€want€you€being€involved€in€it,€because€youððve€got€enough€just€to€take€care€ofÐ ° Ðme.à0` Ð Ð àМì` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àAnd€you€believed,€and€you€witnessed€and€you€saw€your€husband,Ð ˆØ ÐVirgil,€take€over€your€motherððs€affairs.ÐtÄÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à0¸ Ð Ð àI€saw€him€do€what€my€mother€asked€him€to€do.Ð`°¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àNow,€when€your€stepfather€died€and€your€mother€started€living€withÐ L œ Ðyou,€you€started€receiving€$200€a€week€from€her;€is€that€not€right?Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àThat€is€true,€but€that€money€„€„€wait€just€a€minute.€€That€money€wasÐ $ t Ðused€for€pads,€groceries,€her€juices€and€special€things€that€she€wanted€to€eat.€Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð ü L  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à0¸ Ð Ð àNow,€when€she€died,€you€knew€about€the€will,€didnððt€you?Ðè 8 ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à0 ¸ àWhen€she€died,€yeah,€Virgil€went€and€got€it.ÐÔ$ ¸ (#¸ (# Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àIn€fact,€within€three€weeks€after€she€made€the€Will,€you€knew€aboutÐ À  Ðthe€Will?Ьü Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àI€knew€it€was€a€Will,€but€I€did€not€know€what€was€in€the€Will.€€I€toldÐ ˜è  Ðher€that€I€did€not€want€to€know€what€was€in€it.à0pÐ Ð àÐ„Ô pÐ pÐ  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àWell,€do€you€remember€your€husband€testifying€yesterday€that€thereÐ pÀ Ðwas€this€suitcase,€that€he€had€a€briefcase€and€that€he€had€the€Will€in€there€and€that€heÐ \¬ Ðread€it€to€her?ÐH˜Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à0 ¸ àYeah,€but€I€wasnððt€there.Ð4„¸ (#¸ (# Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àOkay.€€So€you€didnððt€want€to€look€at€the€Will€or€have€anything€to€doÐ  p Ðwith€the€Will€because€you€knew€you€were€in€the€Will,€didnððt€you,€maððam?Ð \Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àI€didnððt€want€to€have€anything€to€do€with€it.€€I€didnððt€care€anythingÐ øH Ðabout€it.€€All€I€cared€about€was€taking€care€of€my€mother€and€other€responsibilitiesÐ ä4 Ðthat€I€had.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€charge€to€the€jury€was€a€clear€and€correct€statement€of€the€law€of€Tennessee€which€fairlyÐ ¨ø Ðdefines€the€legal€issues€involved€in€this€case€and€does€not€mislead€the€jury.€€òòSee€Otis€v.€CambridgeÐ ”ä ÐMutual€Fire€Ins.€Co.óó,€850€S.W.2d€439,€446€(Tenn.€1992).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€denial€of€the€special€request€was€not€error.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€case€was€fairly€tried€on€issues€of€material€fact€and€the€jury€properly€charged.€€The€juryÐ 0"€  Ðcould€have€found€either€way€on€the€issue€of€undue€influence€and€their€verdict,€approved€by€the€trialÐ #l! Ðjudge,€would€withstand€appellate€challenge.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€in€all€respectsÐ $X" Ðaffirmed€and€the€case€is€remanded€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.à Ð àÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àCosts€of€the€cause€are€assessed€against€Appellants.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE