ÿWPCd FdÄ„\:„Û z›ái×Õà…ϯ“z‡®_êœêÆíH÷0ôÎæ¥ä¼á*Òê7 ’…‡|?ïÚFUHzÏ©¬W(c_€zŸ5óûÚÌ!!è¤ô¹“Î{¦œ¢¦º ñ¸ h¸çååuÏzœ5£óÒl†ó®+´þKtq#ô^¸?t ò!_'kÕ³îCù,7plÛĘÇóv¬*x MüÎñ)ÿ¿_YŠÞ–gëÍfU?¢]²j¶!(bH‘7¨ñLœ ÅcMdå#”RK™QâZa¹“Á¦^ão‘¸©äþfCàÃÖ:󆥅ɜ6AKx$Ðq³;W)… çŒâe¥4‘aQçÛ¼µùŽkrùÊonsJD5ÒúEÔ„‰ÖB’ÁŽFPp:6U¢rµ²ÙlLñRH•ÏC ús˜*´9™[”îÀ÷Ù ßœËÚdãš¿6ß8T´Ó™ ºðEª„¡—…Bt2»ñÅúÐÇd›pö5õ{1és™w oúb¬Þ&!šš.o& Ä À ^l?ý$f¶¤ÿº‰cöÝÞ`Yðbü€ZPkc3óÈmÉñážñŠ‘MÙµ{«ê‰O6‚Ù“…?d½4»*ûi|ûýúwßÌús7æGb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ UN™ Æç Æ­ ÆsÆ9 0DÿNCEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWbYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY 0ëaaaa BLL 0¤i D3  D-@ 0Kmm AS¸Æ  0¤Ñ 0Du A«¹˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»‚Y1Þ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖƒF1ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó FriersonBeierCappsSuntrustEsstmanBankFirstChildressCurrieLifecareWoodardhad hadpastoredDarnell- ù-(|G2à˜$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X_ÕX»»Ô d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€é»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼é»»»ÔÑ8€_ÕXXdì»»d8Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@ZZìàAugust€11,€2004€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡X_ÕX»¼éÔÌò òÔ#†¼é»XX_Õ¡#ÔÓ  ÓCHARLES€SMITH,€EXECUTOR€OF€THE€ESTATE€OF€ETHEL€ROGERSÐ Ò" ÐSMITH,€v.€JERRY€SMITHòòóóÔ‡X_ÕX»¼éÔó óÐ æ 6 ÐÓçÓÌà@¬ ¬ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Ô_ÔHamblenÔ_Ô€CountyˆÐ æ 6 Ðà@  ìàNo.€2000„200€€€€€€Hon.€Thomas€R.€Frierson,€II.,€JudgeˆÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` A߈Ð –æ  ÐÌà@­ ­ ìàNo.€E2003„02877„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€FILED€OCTOBER€25,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_Ô€ˆÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÌThe€Trial€Court€held€that€the€confidential€relationship€between€defendant€and€deceased€voids€theÐ P  Ðtransaction€because€deceased€did€not€have€independent€advice.€€On€appeal,€we€reverse.Ð <Œ ÐÔ#†¼é»XX_ÕX#ÔÔ‡X_ÕX»¼éÔÌÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Reversed.ó óÐ P ÐÌÌòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€Ô_ÔP.Jóó.Ô_Ô,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€D.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,Ð Ä ÐJóó.,€and€òòSharon€G.€Lee,€Jóó.,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌÔ#†¼é»XX_Õå#ÔÔ‡X_ÕX»¼éÔÌDouglas€R.€Beier,€Ô_ÔMorristownÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€Appellant.Ð tÄ ÐÌChristopher€P.€Capps,€Ô_ÔMorristownÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€Appellee.Ð L œ ÐÌÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼é»XX_Õ‘#ÔÔ‡X_ÕX»¼éԈРü#L# ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€case€was€previously€before€the€Court€on€appeal.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€first€appeal,€the€Trial€Court€found€that€there€was€no€confidential€Ô#†¼é»XX_ÕÒ#ÔÔ‡X_ÕX»¼éÔÔ‡ X9ËXXX_ÕÔrelationshipÐ ¬'ü"' Ðbetween€Jerry€and€Ethel€Smith,€and€also€found€that€Jerry€did€not€exercise€such€dominion€and€controlÐ ˜(è#( Ðover€Ethel€that€the€transactions€in€dispute€should€be€voided€for€undue€influence.€€On€appeal,€weÐ „)Ô$) Ðdetermined€that€a€confidential€relationship€did€exist€between€Jerry€and€Ethel€based€upon€the€powerÐ p*À%* Ðof€attorney€which,€even€though€it€never€became€operative€by€its€terms,€was€treated€by€Jerry€and€EthelÐ \+¬&+ Ðas€if€it€were€effective€and€unrestricted.€€We€held€that€a€presumption€of€undue€influence€arose,€andÐ H,˜', Ðremanded€the€case€to€the€Trial€Court€for€a€determination€of€whether€Jerry€had€sufficiently€rebuttedÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôthe€presumption€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€of€the€fairness€of€the€transactions€creating€theÐ ° ÐSuntrust€account,€ð ðand€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€requiredðð.€€€Ð œì Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àAfter€remand,€the€Trial€Court€entered€an€Opinion€and€said€that€since€this€Court€hadÐ tÄ Ðnot€directed€it€to€conduct€a€new€trial€or€consider€additional€evidence,€the€Court€reviewed€theÐ `° Ðevidence€presented€at€trial€and€determined€that€Jerry€had€not€rebutted€the€presumption€of€undueÐ L œ Ðinfluence.€€The€Court€held€that€to€prove€the€fairness€of€the€transaction,€the€dominant€party€couldÐ 8 ˆ Ðshow€that€the€weaker€party€received€independent€advice€before€engaging€in€the€transaction,€whichÐ $ t Ðwould€come€from€one€who€was€competent€and€disassociated€from€the€parties.€€The€Court€held€thatÐ  ` ÐEthel€never€had€independent€advice€before€investing€her€funds€in€the€joint€Suntrust€account,€and€thusÐ ü L  ÐJerry€failed€to€show€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€the€fairness€of€the€transactions.€€The€CourtÐ è 8  Ðthen€set€aside€the€transactions,€and€held€that€all€funds€in€the€Suntrust€account€would€be€part€ofÐ Ô$  ÐEthelððs€estate.€€à ¸ àÐ À  Ðà  àà ` àJerry€then€filed€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.,€Rule€59€Motion€for€New€Trial,€arguing€that€heÐ ¬ü  Ðshould€be€allowed€to€present€evidence€on€the€issue€remanded€by€this€Court,€because€the€issue€wasÐ ˜è  Ðð ðnot€central€to€the€matters€previously€being€tried€and€therefore,€Defendantððs€proof€on€this€issue€wasÐ „Ô  Ðnot€completely€pursued€and€developed.ðð€The€Court€held€a€hearing€on€the€Motion,€and€no€offer€ofÐ pÀ Ðproof€was€made.€€The€Trial€Court€denied€the€motion.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€issues€on€appeal€are:Ð 4„ ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à1.à0¸ ` (#` (#àDid€the€Trial€Court€err€in€failing€to€allow€a€new€trial€and€hear€evidence€on€theÐ  \ Ðissue€of€undue€influence€after€remand?ÐøH¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à2.à0¸ ` (#` (#àDid€the€Trial€Court€err€in€finding€that€Jerry€Smith€had€not€rebutted€theÐ Ð  Ðpresumption€of€undue€influence?м ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à3.à0¸ ` (#` (#àDid€the€Trial€Court€err€in€finding€that€Ethel€Smith€did€not€receiveÐ ”ä Ðindependent€advice?ò òЀи (#¸ (# Ðó óà  àÌà  àà ` àJerry€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€his€motion€seeking€a€new€trialÐ X ¨ Ðso€that€he€could€present€additional€evidence.ò ò€€ó óAs€we€have€previously€held,€a€trial€judge€has€broadÐ D!” Ðdiscretion€in€granting€or€denying€a€new€trial.€€òòTennessee€Asphalt€Co.€v.€Purcell€Enterprises,€Inc.óó,€631Ð 4"„  ÐS.W.2d€439€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982).€€Further,€the€burden€is€on€the€movant€to€show€the€abuse€of€Ð  #p! Ðdiscretion.€€òòEsstman€v.€Boydóó,€605€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979).€€Jerry€has€not€shown€that€theÐ  $\" ÐTrial€Court€abused€its€discretion€in€denying€his€motion€for€new€trial,€but€he€argues€the€Trial€CourtÐ ø$H # Ðshould€have€granted€the€motion€because,€prior€to€our€ruling€in€the€first€appeal,€he€had€no€reason€toÐ ä%4!$ Ðbelieve€that€the€power€of€attorney€would€create€a€confidential€relationship€between€the€parties,Ð Ð& "% Ðbecause€it€had€not€become€effective€according€to€its€terms.€€This€argument€ignores€the€fact€that€theÐ ¼' #& Ðparties€had€acted€as€though€the€power€of€attorney€was€effective,€and€Jerry€used€the€power€of€attorneyÐ ¨(ø#' Ðto€execute€documents€as€Ethelððs€attorney„in„fact.€€The€argument€also€ignores€the€fact€that€undueÐ ”)ä$( Ðinfluence€and€a€confidential€relationship€were€pled€in€the€initial€Complaint,€and€were€clearly€issuesÐ €*Ð%) Ðthat€were€raised€at€trial.€€Proof€was€offered€in€the€first€trial€regarding€the€circumstances€of€theÐ l+¼&* Ðtransactions€establishing€the€Suntrust€account,€and€whether€there€was€undue€influence€exercised€byÐ ° ÐJerry€in€those€transactions.€€Thus,€Jerry€has€not€shown€that€he€was€prejudiced€in€any€way€by€the€TrialÐ œì ÐCourtððs€failure€to€allow€a€new€trial,€since€the€issues€were€tried€in€the€first€trial.€We€find€this€issue€toÐ ˆØ Ðbe€without€merit.Ð tÄ Ðò òÌà  àà ` àó óThe€Trial€Court€found€that€Jerry€had€not€sufficiently€rebutted€the€presumption€ofÐ L œ Ðundue€influence,€primarily€relyingò òó ó€on€a€fact€that€Ethel€had€not€received€independent€advice€beforeÐ 8 ˆ Ðmaking€the€transactions€at€issue.€€Jerry€argues€that€he€did€€rebut€the€presumption€of€undue€influence,Ð $ t Ðbased€on€the€proof€which€showed€that€his€motherððs€mental€condition€was€good,€she€made€her€ownÐ  ` Ðdecisions,€she€was€upset€with€Charles€and€his€wife€and€did€not€want€them€to€inherit,€and€that€she€Ð ü L  Ðreceive€independent€advice€from€a€Mr.€Brice.Ð è 8  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àAs€this€Court€has€previously€explained:Ð À  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà0  àà0` (#(#à.€.€.€the€existence€of€a€confidential€relationship,€combined€with€a€gift€or€benefit€to€theÐ ˜è  Ðdominant€party,€creates€a€presumption€of€undue€influence,€and€of€the€invalidity€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðtransaction.€€This€presumption€is€not€conclusive,€however,€for€it€may€be€rebutted€byÐ pÀ Ðclear€and€convincing€evidence€of€the€fairness€of€the€transaction.€€Ð\¬` (#` (# ÐÌòòóóòòMartin€v.€Mooreóó,€109€S.W.3d€305,€310€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2003).€€Our€Supreme€Court€has€stated€thatÐ 4„ Ðthe€ð ðpresumption€of€invalidity,€however,€is€rebuttable€and€the€rule€in€this€State€is€that€clear€andÐ  p Ðconvincing€evidence€of€fairness€will€suffice.€€Proof€that€the€donor€received€independent€adviceÐ  \ Ðrespecting€the€consequences€and€advisability€of€the€gift€is€one€example,€but€not€the€only€one,€of€suchÐ øH Ðproof€of€fairness.ðð€€òòRichmond€v.€Christianóó,€555€S.W.2d€105,€107„108€(Tenn.€1977).€€That€Court€wentÐ ä4 Ðon€to€explain€that€independent€advice€is€required€where€the€ð ðcircumstances€are€such€that€it€wouldÐ Ð  Ðbe€difficult€to€show€the€fairness€of€the€transaction€without€proof€of€independent€advice,€particularly,Ð ¼  Ðwhere€the€donor€is€impoverished€by€the€gift€in€question€or€the€gift€seems€to€be€unnatural€under€theÐ ¨ø Ðcircumstances€of€the€case.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€108.€€The€Court€reiterated€that€such€proof€is€not€necessary€in€everyÐ ”ä Ðcase€to€rebut€the€presumption.€€òòIdóó.Ð €Ð Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àIn€òòFell€v.€Ramboóó,€36€S.W.3d€837€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000),€we€said:Ð X ¨ Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àAlthough€proving€that€the€subservient€party€had€independent€advice€is€one€way€ofÐ 0"€  Ðshowing€the€fairness€of€the€transaction,€it€is€not€the€only€way.€€Courts€requireÐ #l! Ðevidence€of€independent€advice€only€where€it€would€be€difficult€to€show€the€fairnessÐ $X" Ðof€the€transaction€without€it.€€This€typically€arises€when€the€transaction€under€scrutinyÐ ô$D # Ðis€a€gift€from€a€feeble€or€incompetent€subservient€party€to€the€dominant€party,€and€theÐ à%0!$ Ðgift€leaves€the€donor€impoverished.ÐÌ&"%` (#` (# ÐÌòòId.óó€at€848.€€In€òòFellóó,€a€confidential€relationship€arose€due€to€a€power€of€attorney,€and€the€transactionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€question€was€the€sale€of€the€subservient€partyððs€farm,€which€benefitted€the€dominant€party€becauseÐ )à$( Ðshe€was€primary€beneficiary€of€the€subservient€partyððs€estate,€and€the€sale€defeated€the€interest€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðremaindermen€in€the€property.€òòóóWe€noted,€however,€that€the€sale€did€not€leave€the€subservient€partyÐ h+¸&* Ðimpoverished,€and€thus€it€was€not€necessary€to€show€that€she€received€independent€advice.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€further€explained€that€the€presumption€of€undue€influence€had€been€rebutted€byÐ ˆØ Ðclear€and€convincing€evidence,€because€the€proof€showed€that€it€was€the€subservient€partyððs€choiceÐ tÄ Ðto€sell€the€farm,€she€signed€the€contract€and€the€deed,€the€purchase€price€was€within€a€reasonableÐ `° Ðrange,€and€she€lived€in€a€retirement€home€and€no€longer€needed€the€farm.€€òòIdóó.€€We€concluded€that€the€Ð L œ Ðproof€sufficiently€showed€that€the€transaction€was€fair€to€the€subservient€party,€and€the€fact€that€itÐ 8 ˆ Ðwas€unfair€to€the€remaindermen€was€irrelevant.€€òòIdóó.Ð $ t Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àSimilarly,€in€the€case€before€us,€the€undisputed€proof€showed€that€Ethelððs€mentalÐ ü L  Ðcapabilities€were€good,€she€understood€her€finances€and€made€her€own€decisions€regarding€the€same.€Ð è 8  ÐThe€undisputed€proof€was€that€she€wanted€to€sell€her€home€because€she€was€living€at€Grand€CourtÐ Ô$  Ðand€no€longer€needed€it,€and€there€was€no€dispute€raised€that€the€selling€price€was€unfair€orÐ À  Ðunreasonable.€€The€proof€did€not€show€that€Jerry€had€anything€to€do€with€the€sale€of€the€residence,Ð ¬ü  Ðthe€negotiations€regarding€the€same,€or€that€he€played€any€role€whatsoever€except€for€signing€theÐ ˜è  Ðdocuments€on€Ethelððs€behalf€at€closing€because€she€did€not€feel€up€to€doing€so€and€asked€him€to€goÐ „Ô  Ðin€her€stead.€€Moreover,€Charlesðð€daughter€testified€that€she€supported€Ethelððs€selling€the€house€andÐ pÀ Ðtook€no€issue€with€that€transaction.Ð \¬ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€undisputed€proof€further€showed€that€Jerry€then€deposited€the€proceeds€from€theÐ 4„ Ðsale€of€the€house€into€a€joint€CD€at€Ethelððs€request,€and€later€took€Ethel€to€Suntrust€Bank€to€meetÐ  p Ðwith€Mr.€Brice€to€discuss€how€to€best€invest€her€money€so€that€she€could€pay€her€bills€with€herÐ  \ Ðmonthly€interest€payments.€€The€proof€was€that€Ethel€participated€and€talked€with€Mr.€Brice,Ð øH Ðunderstood€what€she€was€doing,€and€made€her€own€decision€to€open€the€joint€account€and€invest€herÐ ä4 Ðmoney.€€She€signed€documents€herself€and€made€the€initial€investment,€and€later€deposited€funds€inÐ Ð  Ðthe€account€from€a€CD€at€BankFirst€that€had€matured.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Suntrust€account€was€joint,€and€Ethel€held€title€to€it€and€control€over€the€fundsÐ ”ä Ðand€was€not€impoverished€by€the€transactions.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€inÐ €Ð Ðbasing€its€decision€purely€on€a€requirement€of€independent€advice,€because€such€advice€is€notÐ l¼ Ðnecessarily€required,€as€heretofore€discussed.€€The€proof€showed€the€transactions€were€fair€to€EthelÐ X ¨ Ðby€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€since€it€is€undisputed€that€Ethelððs€mind€was€good€and€she€madeÐ D!” Ðher€own€financial€decisions,€participated€in€transactions€which€benefitted€her€and€were€designed€toÐ 0"€  Ðgive€her€money€to€pay€her€monthly€bills€and€she€was€not€impoverished€thereby.€€Ð #l! Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àOne€of€Charlesðð€positions€is€the€transactions€should€be€voided€because€they€were€notÐ ô$D # Ðfair€to€him€as€a€potential€beneficiary,€but€this€is€not€the€appropriate€test.€€òòSeeóó€òòFellóó,€òòsupraóó.€€Moreover,Ð à%0!$ Ðthe€undisputed€proof€was€that€Ethelððs€intent€was€to€leave€her€entire€estate€to€Jerry€and€his€wife,€dueÐ Ì&"% Ðto€her€estrangement€from€Charles€and€his€wife,€and€that€the€rift€had€existed€for€thirty€years.€€TheÐ ¸'#& Ðproof€was€also€undisputed€that€Ethel€was€upset€with€Charles€for€not€coming€to€see€her€and€told€othersÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnot€to€call€him€for€anything,€but€instead€looked€to€Jerry€for€her€transportation€needs€and€otherwise.€Ð )à$( ÐJerry,€Edith€and€Mr.€Brice€testified€that€Ethel€made€the€decision€to€set€up€the€Suntrust€account€withÐ |*Ì%) Ðrights€of€survivorship,€and€that€she€understood€the€implications€of€doing€so,€i.e.,€that€it€would€notÐ h+¸&* Ðpass€to€Charles.€€We€cannot€on€this€proof€invalidate€a€decision€made€by€a€competent€adult,€simplyÐ ° Ðbecause€a€potential€beneficiary€thinks€it€is€unfair€to€him€or€her.Ð œì Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThis€case€is€also€factually€similar€to€the€case€of€òòIn€re€Estate€of€Maddoxóó,€60€S.W.3dÐ tÄ Ð84€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001),€wherein€the€testatorððs€daughter€sought€to€challenge€the€will€and€a€codicilÐ `° Ðthereto€based€on€the€ground€that€a€grandson€had€procured€them€through€undue€influence.€€TheÐ L œ Ðtestator€had€given€her€grandson€power€of€attorney€5€years€before€her€death,€and€left€him€a€sizeableÐ 8 ˆ Ðportion€of€her€estate€when€she€died.€€The€presumption€of€undue€influence€arose,€but€this€CourtÐ $ t Ðaffirmed€the€Trial€Courtððs€judgment€that€the€presumption€was€sufficiently€rebutted.€€òòóóThe€CourtÐ  ` Ðdiscussed€the€fact€that€proof€of€independent€advice€was€not€always€required,€and€stated€ð ðthe€scopeÐ ü L  Ðof€the€evidence€regarding€the€fairness€of€a€transaction€or€gift€is€quite€broad.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€89.€€The€CourtÐ è 8  Ðwent€on€to€summarize:Ð Ô$  Ðà0  àÐ (#(# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àBased€on€our€independent€review€of€the€record,€we€have€determined€that€the€evidenceÐ ¬ü  Ðdemonstrates€clearly€and€convincingly€that€Ms.€Maddox's€February€1991€will€and€theÐ ˜è  Ð1995€codicil€reflected€her€own€testamentary€intent.€€The€record€contains€no€directÐ „Ô  Ðevidence€that€Joe€Whitaker€undertook€to€influence,€let€alone,€unduly€influence,€Ms.Ð pÀ ÐMaddox's€decisions€regarding€the€distribution€of€her€property.€€The€circumstantialÐ \¬ Ðevidence€offered€by€Ms.€Wilson€to€challenge€the€will€and€the€codicil€is,€at€best,€weakÐ H˜ Ðand€is€clearly€and€convincingly€rebutted€by€the€other€evidence€in€the€record€showingÐ 4„ Ðthat€Ms.€Maddox€remained€strong-willed€to€the€end€and€that€she€acted€intentionallyÐ  p Ðand€deliberately€with€regard€to€her€personal€finances€as€well€as€her€estate€planning.€Ð  \ ÐAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€court's€decision€to€uphold€Ms.€Maddox's€FebruaryÐ øH Ð1991€will€and€her€June€1995€codicil.Ðä4` (#` (# ÐÌòòId.óó€at€92.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€hold€the€presumption€of€undue€influence€was€sufficiently€rebutted€on€this€record.€Ð ”ä ÐòòSee,€Childress€v.€Currieóó,€74€S.W.3d€324€(Tenn.€2002).€Ð €Ð Ѐò òÐ l¼ Ðó óà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€erred€in€finding€that€Jerry€had€failed€to€rebut€the€presumption€ofÐ X ¨ Ðundue€influence€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€and€the€trial€Courtððs€judgment€is€reversed.€€TheÐ D!” Ðtransactions€are€upheld€so€that€the€funds€pass€to€Jerry,€as€it€was€Ethelððs€clear€intent.Ô#†X_ÕXX X9Ë #ÔÔ#†¼é»XX_Õï #ÔÔ‡X_ÕX»¼éԀР0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€cause€is€remanded€with€the€cost€of€the€appeal€assessed€to€Charles€Smith,Ð $X" ÐExecutor€of€the€Estate€of€Ethel€Rogers€Smith.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à______________________________Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€P.J.óóÔ#†¼é»XX_Õ¬K#ÔÔ‡X_ÕX»¼éÔ