WPC\@ y_ZdKI^b)׌ lm?.3# 61 .G[:Q51{ ,/01~lC|ȿv!CW7s&V7l ƕ<|È!'ZrOC_, 3|YkmS0d_;YREʛY0y}⡛@ v|5}cYt1{kJs?%49hVJ Ec,yQǬ#;!ouypXdh+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKN<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KN<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSO\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KN<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSO\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7D(X7  ?P%2A`Arial?  XXXSO\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dC)1dxd<:zTop of For7F(X7  ?P%2A`Arial?  XXXSO\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7C)2dxd0KS.SampleKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKN<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial Rn$      2  m  _Forthesakeofsimplicity,weuseroundnumbersinthisOpinionasmuchaspossible.(|G2n$ !.8BEdd8         0  m(#$  0   Rn$      1  m  _Tominimizeconfusion,wewillrefertothepartiesbytheirfirstnamesratherthanasMs.orMr.Smith. - Rn$      3  m  _Jerryalsosigned DoNotResuscitateordersforhismotherwhenshewasinthehospital,buthetestifiedthat  hedidnotunderstandthedocumentsandthoughttheymeantthathismotherwouldnotbeputonamachineforlife t support.TestimonyattrialalsorevealedthatJerryswife,EdithSmith,alsohadsignedchecksonEthelschecking 8 account. d(|3Gy$ !.8BEdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gy$ !.8BEdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK  !.8BEdd8     _  BE8XXdd8  @ GBEINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#BEG #Ԉ &   SubmittedonBriefsAugust20,2002Session L XXBE #BEXX#CHARLESSMITH,EXECUTOROFTHEESTATEOFETHELROGERS  6 SMITH,DECEASEDv.JERRYSMITHXXBE   J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtfor_Hamblen_ԀCounty  J @@No.2000200ThomasR._Frierson_,II,Chancellor  6  FILEDOCTOBER30,_2002_   @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200103132_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }    EthelRogersSmith( Ethel)T S#  1      ׀executedawillin1991#BEXX#XXBEԀthatprovidedthatherpropertywouldgoto x herhusband,ifhesurvivedher,andifnot,wouldbesplitequallybetweenhertwosons,Charles d Smith( Charles)andJerrySmith( Jerry).Ethelshusbandpredeceasedher.Ethelexecuteda P DurablePowerofAttorneywithSpringingClausein1994,namingJerryasherattorneyinfact. < Althoughthepowerofattorneyneverbecameoperativeunderitsterms,EthelandJerrytreateditas (x thoughitwereoperativeandJerrysignednumerousdocumentsashismothersattorneyinfact. d EtheldiedinFebruaryof2000.ThemajorityofEthelsmoney#BEXX#XXBEisina_SunTrust_ԀSecuritiesaccount P heldasjointtenantswithrightofsurvivorshipwithJerry.TheTrialCourtfoundthatnoconfidential < relationshipexistedbetweenJerryandEthelandthatJerrydidnotexerciseundueinfluenceoverhis ( mother.Charles,asexecutorofhismothersestate,appeals,amongotherthings,theTrialCourts  findingsofnoconfidentialrelationshipandnoundueinfluence.Weaffirminpart,reverseinpart,  andremand.#BEXX6 #XXBE  V Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt `!  Affirmed,inpart,andReversed,inpart;CaseRemanded  L"!   #BEX #XX.BED.Michael_Swiney_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_,P.J., %` $ andHerschelP.Franks,J.,joined. %L!% ChristopherP._Capps_,_Morristown_,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,CharlesSmith,Executorofthe '$#' EstateofEthelRogersSmith. ($( DouglasR._Beier_,_Morristown_,Tennessee,fortheAppellee,JerrySmith. *%*   +&+  OPINION #BEXX #XXBE  #BEXX#XXBE Background        ` Thisappealrevolvesaroundthecentralquestionofwhetherornotasonexerted ` undueinfluenceoverhismothersuchthatthesonwasabletodiverthismothersassetstohimself L  toavoiddistributionofthoseassetsunderhismotherswill.EthelRogersSmith,thedecedentin 8  thiscase,executedawillin1991#BEXXF#XXBEԀthatprovidedforherpropertytogotoherhusband,ifhesurvived $ t her,andifnot,tobesplitequallybetweenhertwosons,CharlesSmithandJerrySmith.Ethel  ` executedaDurablePowerofAttorneywithSpringingClausein1994,namingJerryasherattorney  L  infact.Thepowerofattorneycontainsaparagraphthatstipulatesthatthepowerbecomesoperative  8  uponadoctorscertificationofdisabilityorincapacityoftheprincipal.Therecordcontainsnoproof $  ofanysuchdoctorscertificationofdisabilityorincapacity.Ethelshusbandpredeceasedher.   Ѐ      ` Severalyearsafterherhusbandsdeath,EthelmovedfromherhousetotheGrand   Courtof_Morristown_,arentalretirementcommunity.EvidenceattrialindicatedJerryvisitedEthel   frequentlybothatGrandCourtand,later,atanursinghome,andatthehospitalafterEthelwas p admittedtothehospital.JerryassistedEthelwithroutinetasksandtransportation.Charlesalso \ visitedEthel,butlessoften. H    ` AftermovingtoGrandCourt,Etheldecidedtosellherhouse.Jerrytestifiedhe  p signedthedocumentsinconnectionwiththesaleofthehouse,athismothersrequest,asher  \ attorneyinfact.Thesaleproceeds,approximately$90,000Q S#  2      ,weredepositedinatimecertificateof H depositwithUnionPlantersBankunderanaccountnameof EthelSmithorJerryG.Smith.Jerry 4 alsoexecutedthedocumentationinconnectionwiththiscertificateofdepositasattorneyinfactfor   hismother.      ` WhenthecertificateofdepositatUnionPlantersBankmaturedin1999,Etheland  JerrymetwithMr.Briceof_SunTrust_ԀSecurities,Inc.toestablishanewaccountutilizingthemoney  fromtheUnionPlantersCD.The_SunTrust_Ԁaccountwasestablishedasajointtenancywithrightof l survivorshipinthenamesof EthelK.Smithand JerryG.Smith.Someadditionalmoneyof X  Ethelswasaddedtotheaccountresultinginatotalofapproximately$210,000.This$210,000 D! constitutesthemajorityoftheassetsownedbyEthelatherdeath. 0"  Ѐ #l!    ` Ethelspowerofattorneyneverbecameoperative,accordingtoitsterms,because $X" sheneverwascertifiedbyherphysicianasdisabledorincapacitated.However,EthelandJerryboth $D # treatedthepowerofattorneyaseffective.Theevidencepresentedattrialwas_uncontroverted_Ԁthat %0!$ althoughEthelhadnumeroushealthproblems,sheneverlosthermentalacuity.Jerry,apparently &"% withEthelsknowledge,usedthepowerofattorneytosignanumberofdocumentsforEthel '#&  including,butnotlimitedto,thedocumentsinvolvedinthesaleofEthelshouse,anapplicationwith (#' theDepartmentofHumanServices,andthedocumentstosetupthecertificateofdepositatUnion  PlantersBank.U S#  3            ` Jerrytestifiedheneverreadtheentirepowerofattorneyanddidnotunderstandwhat t poweritactuallygavetohim.Hetestifiedthatduringhisinvolvementwiththesaleofhismothers ` house,hereceivedaninstructionfromthetitlecompanytotakethepowerofattorneytothecourt L  houseandhaveitregistered.ThetitlecompanythenallowedJerrytosignthedocumentsasEthels 8  attorneyinfact. $ t    ` TestimonyshowedJerryfilledoutanapplicationforMedicaidforhismotherin  L  whichhelistedheronlyincomeasSocialSecurityandheronlyresourceasacheckingaccountthat  8  containedlessthan$5,000.Hedidnotdiscloseintheapplicationthe_SunTrust_Ԁaccountheandhis $  motherheldasjointtenants.Hetestifiedthatsincehisnamewasontheaccount,he didntthink   itwouldcount.mXXԀ#XXm%#   Ѐ      ` TestimonyattrialshowedEthelhadagoodrelationshipwithherson,Jerry,buther   relationshipwithherotherson,Charles,wassomewhatstrained.Theevidenceindicatedtherehad p beenaperiodoftimeCharlesandhiswiferefusedtoallowtheirchildrentovisitwithEthel,the \ childrensgrandmother.TestimonyalsowasintroducedthatshowedthatEthelwasangrywith H Charlesforhisrefusaltoattendhisgrandmothersfuneral.Additionally,therewastestimonythat 4 duetoafamilyrift,CharlesswifedidnotvisitEthelatanytimeduringthe30yearspriortoEthels  p death.JerrytestifiedhismotherhadmadehimpromisethatCharlesandhiswifewouldntget  \ anythingfromEthelsestateuponherdeath.EtheldiedonFebruary3,2000. H    ` Attrial,plaintiffcalledReverendGriffin,theretiredpastorofEthelschurch,to   testify.Anobjectionwasraisedtothedisclosureofconfidencesmadeinthecourseofthe   pastor/parishionerrelationship.TheTrialCourtreadaportionofTenn.CodeAnn.241206to  allowReverendGriffintodetermineifhisanswersfellwithintheparametersofsuchconfidences.  ReverendGriffindidtestifythatEthellovedbothofhersonsandthatshewasafrugallady,but  invokedtheclergy/penitentprivilegeregardingotherdiscussionsheandEthelhad. l Ѐ X    Discussion  D!      ` Appellantraisesseveralissuesonappeal:(1)didtheTrialCourterrinfindingthat #l! noconfidentialrelationshipexistedbetweenJerrySmithandhismother,EthelRogersSmith;(2)did $X" theTrialCourterrinfailingtofindthattheaccountat_SunTrust_ԀSecuritieswasacquiredbythe $D # undueinfluenceofJerrySmithoverhismother;(3)didtheTrialCourterrinignoringthealleged %0!$ fraudbyJerrySmithinregardtotheMedicaidapplication;(4)didtheTrialCourterrinits &"% instructiontoAppellantswitnessregardingtheclergy/penitentconfidentialityprivilege;and(5)did  theTrialCourterrinfindingthattherequirementsforcreatingajointtenancywithrightof  survivorshiphadbeenmet.     ` OXXXXOurreviewis=  de_novo=0g,b_  ݀upontherecord,accompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectness ` ofthefindingsoffactofthetrialcourt,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn. L  R.App.P.13(d);Boganv.Bogan,60S.W.3d721,727(Tenn.2001).Atrialcourt'sconclusionsof 8  lawaresubjecttoa=  de_novo=2g,b_  ݀reviewwithnopresumptionofcorrectness.=  S.Constructors,Inc.v. $ t _Loudon_ԀCountyBd.ofEduc.=K3  ,58S.W.3d706,710(Tenn.2001).   `    ` Wefirstaddress#XXXOX0#whetherornottheTrialCourterredinfindingthatnoconfidential  8  relationshipexistedbetweenJerrySmithandhismother. Thequestionofwhetheraconfidential $  relationshipexistedisaquestionoffact,_Brantley_Ԁv.Mayo,No.02A019710GS00261,1998Tenn.   App.LEXIS871,at*8(Tenn.Ct.App.Dec.28,1998),noappl.perm.appealfiled,andthisCourt   givesgreatdeferencetotheTrialCourtsfindingsoffact.However,weholdthattheevidencedoes   preponderateagainsttheTrialCourtsfindingthatnoconfidentialrelationshipexistedand,therefore,   wereverseonthisissue. p Ѐ   ` ItiswellsettledinTennesseethat wherethereisaconfidentialrelationship, \ followedbyatransactionwhereinthedominantpartyreceivesabenefitfromtheotherparty,a H presumptionofundueinfluencearises,thatmayberebuttedonlybyclearandconvincingevidence 4 ofthefairnessofthetransaction.E.g.,_Childress_Ԁv._Currie_,74S.W.3d324,328(Tenn.2002)  p (quoting_Matlock_Ԁv.Simpson,902S.W.2d384,386(Tenn.1995)).Aconfidentialrelationshipisone  \ whichgivesthedominantpartydominionandcontrolovertheweakerparty.Id. H 8  Theburdenofproofregardingaconfidentialrelationshiprestsupontheparty   claimingtheexistenceofsucharelationship.Onceaconfidentialrelationshiphas   beenshownandapresumptionofundueinfluencearises,theburdenshiftstothe  dominantpartytorebutthepresumptionbyprovingthefairnessofthetransactionby  clearandconvincingevidence.   Id.(citationsomitted). X     ` Therelationshipbetweenaparentandanadultchilddoesnotbyitselfcreatea 0"  confidentialrelationship.Harperv.Watkins,670S.W.2d611,622(Tenn.Ct.App.1983). #l! However,therulechangeswhentheparentgrantsapowerofattorneytotheadultchild,makingthe $X" childthedominantpartyintherelationship.OurSupremeCourthasheld thataconfidential $D # relationshiparisesasamatteroflawwhenanunrestrictedpowerofattorneyisgrantedtothe %0!$ dominantparty._Childress_,74S.W.3dat32829. [A]powerofattorneythathasnotyettaken &"% effect,andwhichmaybealteredorrevokedatanytimebythepersongrantingitcannotbe '#& consideredtobeunrestricted.McKinleyv.Holt,No.03A019807PB00220,1999Tenn.App. (#' LEXIS247,at*11(Tenn.Ct.App.Apr.15,1999),appl.perm.appealdeniedSept.13,1999, )$( (quoting_Garton_Ԁv.Norman,No.01A019511CH00514,1996Tenn.App.LEXIS365,at*12 |*%) (Tenn.Ct.App.June14,1996),noappl.perm.appealfiled). h+&* Ї   ` WeholdthattheTrialCourterredinfindingthatnoconfidentialrelationshipexisted  betweenJerrySmithandhismother.AlthoughthepowerofattorneythatEthelgrantedtoJerry  neverbecameeffective,underitsterms,becauseEthelneverwascertifiedbyherphysicianas  disabledorincapacitated,EthelandJerryactedasthoughthepowerofattorneywasineffectand t treateditasfullyoperative.JerrysignedseveraldocumentsasEthelsattorneyinfactandtestified ` thathedidsoathismothersrequest.TheevidenceshowsthatJerryandEtheltreatedthepowerof L  attorneyasthoughitwereunrestricted.Therefore,weholdthataconfidentialrelationshipdidexist 8  betweenJerrySmithandEthelRogersSmith. $ t    ` WenextturntowhetherornottheTrialCourterredinfailingtofindthattheaccount  L  at_SunTrust_ԀSecuritieswasacquiredbytheundueinfluenceofJerrySmithoverhismother.Ournow  8  havingheldthattheTrialCourterredinnotfindingthataconfidentialrelationshipexistedbetween $  JerrySmithandEthelRogersSmithchangesthepostureofthiscaseastothepartiesburdens.The   recordshowsthatJerry,asthedominantpartyintheconfidentialrelationship,receivedthebenefit   ofbeingthejointtenantwithrightofsurvivorshiponthe_SunTrust_Ԁaccountwhichwasopenedwith   themoneyreceivedfromthesaleofEthelshouse.Thus,apresumptionofundueinfluencearises   inconnectionwiththistransaction.Inlightofourholdingthataconfidentialrelationshipdidexist, p weremandthiscasetotheTrialCourttodeterminewhetherornotJerrySmithcarriedhisburden \ ofrebuttingthispresumptionbyclearandconvincingevidenceofthefairnessofthetransaction. H    ` WenextconsiderwhetherornottheTrialCourtignoredtheallegationsoffraudby  p JerrySmithinregardtotheMedicaidapplicationfiledonbehalfofhismother,andifso,wasthat  \ reversibleerror. Whenatrialcourthasseenandheardwitnesses,especiallywhereissuesof H credibilityandweightoforaltestimonyareinvolved,considerabledeferencemustbeaccordedto 4 thetrialcourt'sfactualfindings.Sealsv.England/CorsairUpholsteryMfg.Co.,984S.W.2d912,   915(Tenn.1999)(quotingCollinsv._Howmet_ԀCorp.,970S.W.2d941,943(Tenn.1998)).Jerry   SmithgaveanexplanationattrialforhisactionswithregardtotheMedicaidapplication.TheTrial  Court,afterseeingandhearingJerrySmithtestify,arrivedatitsdeterminationofhiscredibilityand  theweighttobegiventhattestimonyconcerninghisexplanationforhisactions.AstheTrialCourt  isinthebestpositiontojudgethecredibilityofthewitnesses,wedonotfindthattheevidence l preponderatesagainsttheTrialCourtsfindingsrelatedtothisissue.Weholdthisissuetobe X  withoutmerit. D!    ` AsfarasAppellantsissueregardingwhetherornottheTrialCourterredinits #l! instructiontoAppellantswitnessregardingtheclergy/penitentconfidentialityprivilege,wenotethat $X" noofferofproofwasmaderegardingthesubstanceoftheexcludedevidence.Rule103ofthe $D # TennesseeRulesofEvidenceprovidesthat: %0!$ 8  Errormaynotbepredicateduponarulingwhichadmitsorexcludesevidenceunless '#& asubstantialrightofthepartyisaffected,and...[_i]n_Ԁcasetherulingisoneexcluding (#' evidence,thesubstanceoftheevidenceandthespecificevidentiarybasissupporting )$( admissionweremadeknowntothecourtbyofferorwereapparentfromthe |*%) context....h+&*   ЇTenn.R._Evid_.103(a).Appellantadmitsnoofferofproofwasmade,butarguesthatthesubstance  oftheexcludedevidencewasapparentfromthecontext.Afterathoroughreviewoftherecord,we  findthatthesubstanceoftheexcludedevidenceandthespecificevidentiarybasissupporting  admissionarenotapparentfromthecontext.Sincenoofferofproofwasmadeandthesubstance t oftheexcludedevidenceisnotapparentfromtherecord,weholdthereisnoreversibleerror ` regardingthisissue. L     ` Finally,weaddresswhetherornottheTrialCourterredinfindingthatthe $ t requirementsforcreatingajointtenancywithrightofsurvivorshiphadbeenmet.Webeginby  ` notingthatthisissuewasnotraisedinthepleadings.Appellant,however,claimsthisissuewastried  L  byimpliedconsent.  8     ` ThisCourthasstatedthat [_w]hen_Ԁissuesnotraisedbythepleadingsaretriedby   expressorimpliedconsentoftheparties,theyshallbetreatedinallrespectsasiftheyhadbeen   raisedinthepleadings._Childs_Ԁv._Roane_ԀCountyBd.ofEduc.,929S.W.2d364,366n.1(Tenn.Ct.   App.1996).However,wealsohaveheldthat [_p]resentation_Ԁofevidencethatisrelevanttobotha   pledissueandanonpledissuedoesnotestablishtrialofthenonpledissuebyimpliedconsent. p VantageTechnology,LLCv.Cross,17S.W.3d637,649(Tenn.Ct.App.1999). \    ` Wefindnothingintherecordthatestablishesthatthisissuewastriedbyimplied 4 consent.Theevidencepresentedinregardtothisissuewasrelevant,andnecessary,toissuesthat  p werepled.Therefore,weholdthatthisissuewasnottriedbyimpliedconsentandmaynotberaised  \ forthefirsttimeonappeal. H   Conclusion         ` WereversetheportionoftheTrialCourtsjudgmentthatfoundnoconfidential  relationshipexistedbetweenJerrySmithandhismother,EthelRogersSmith.Thiscauseis  remandedtotheTrialCourtforadeterminationofwhetherornotJerrySmithmethisburdenof  rebuttingthepresumptionofundueinfluencebyclearandconvincingevidenceofthefairnessofthe l transactionscreatingthe_SunTrust_Ԁaccount,andforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmayberequired,if X  any,consistentwiththisOpinion,andforcollectionofthecostsbelow.Weaffirmtheremainder D! oftheTrialCourtsjudgment.CostsonappealareassessedagainsttheAppellee,JerrySmith. 0"     `    `     h     ___________________________________ (#'    `     h     D.MICHAEL_SWINEY_,JUDGE