WPC|$ ;o@wjcRlݭ9 ɫIֆDI=)?UQݧ@x>΁4$ʃ]̋yg5j)чYoN̖@Ђܸ⸔J Nш<`+ɿߜ73cPɴ-𦼍 }.LI+h9XP`hEK>2Y`I3V<ʘ嘳.*Ï/G"mE4@A6ٞ%bnQ;lBUoSE=Y DIE\ 47ksW# %*+eS(r-tAÈK<!"AGx0ѹ%YϺ%;&S3jE[g@Ҫj>Nz3T["T5xf+VU:R" d$eB9֗nXЖ;AUB^# F UNQ % 0( UF UP w@c 4  } 0 lC 0 DUF UFUFBUFpUFiUFOU: BdUFU:UF 7!U:&"&"&"&"&" D3`"`"`" 0D"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" AO"&#&# 0D# D/0$ B_$HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($<4 9Z .Courier New Regular&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular D D U D E D  Ӏ  w#%3|x  s  $    5    XKXXXDzXXK"Clearandconvincingevidenceisdefinedas thatmeasureordegree `  ofproofwhichwillproduceinthemindofthetrieroffactafirmbelieforconvictionastothetruthoftheallegationssoughttobeestablished. Wiltcherv.Bradley ,708S.W.2d407,411(Tenn.App.1985)(quotingfrom Turner p  v.Lutz ,685S.W.2d356(Tex.App.1985)).# DzC##XUX b#((3$ !      0  (#$  0     $    2    XKXXXDzXXKAccordingtotherecordsoftheClerkoftheCourtofAppeals,the `  earlierappealwasdismissedasprematureonMarch27,1995.   $    4    XKXXXDzXXKThetrialcourtalsoruledonseveralclaimsnotrelevanttothis `  appeal.ThecourtsordersincludetheentryofajudgmentinfavorofFirstTennesseeandagainstPatWebbforthebalanceowedoncertainmobilehomespurchasedbyMr.Webb,aswellasthedismissalofathirdpartyclaimbroughtbyPatWebbagainsttheStanfields,thedismissalofvariouscounterclaimsbroughtbytheparties,andthedismissaloftheEstatesclaimforrentagainstPatWebb.Noissuesastothesedeterminationsareraisedonthisappeal.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    7    XKXXXDzXXKPatWebbalsoinsiststhatthepresumptionofundueinfluenceshould `  notbeappliedbecausethepowerofattorneyandthewarrantydeedwereunrelatedtooneanother.However,eveniftrue,thisfactisofnoconsequence.Theruleof Matlock isnotdependentuponsuchcircumstances, p  see Matlock ,902S.W.2dat38586;inthiscase,PatWebbwasina ,  confidentialrelationshipwith,andreceivedabenefitfrom,hisfather.Thus,thepresumptionofundueinfluencewasapplicabletotheconveyanceofthesubjectproperty.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    8    XKXXXDzXXKInthepast,Hanzelikhadperformedlegalservicesforbothofthe `  Webbs.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular      $    6    XKXXXDzXXKIn Johnson ,oneofthechallengedtransactionsoccurredonthesameday `  thepowerofattorneywasexecuted;buttheopiniondoesnotindicatewhetheritoccurredbeforeorafterthepowerofattorneywasgranted.Inanyevent,theissuenowbeforeuswasnotraisedin Johnson .<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular _  $    3    XKXXXDzXXKTherecordindicatesthatPattyWebbtookawayherfathersbillfold, `  removedfundsfromajointaccountwithMr.Webbanddepositedthemintoanaccountinhername,andopenedhissafedepositbox.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular XK XXX3  XXK Ad   FILED  3   December28,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular !XK XXX!3  X!XK Ad   FILED!  !3   December28,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk   $    1     XvXXX zX XvThismatterisnotbeforeusonthisappeal. d<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular   $    9    #XKXXX#DzX#XKTherecordindicatesthatHanzelikmetwithMr.Webbonanundisclosed `  datepriortoFebruary15,1995.Whileitisclearthattheydiscussedthepowerofattorney,thereisnoevidencethatHanzelikadvisedMr.Webbregardingthelegalconsequencesofexecutinganunconditionalwarrantydeedconveyingthesubjectpropertytohisson.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular %XK XXX%3  X%XK Ad   FILED%  %3   December22,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  ݛ` XvXXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7,XXdd7P l$*6&"h 8 `Ef tt06H` l HH(#(# l*6&"h 8 `E0f tt06h` l     l*6&"h 8 `E0f tt06h` l     @  |INTHECOURTOFAPPEALS OFTENNESSEE  `  @ |ATKNOXVILLEFIRSTTENNESSEEBANKNATIONAL  )C/ANO.03A01 d 9801CH00011ASSOCIATION,asExecutorofthe) (#(#HHESTATEOFGLENNP.WEBB,SR.,  )      `     h   )  PlaintiffAppellee, h   ) 2     `     h   )v.   `     h   )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE >     `     h   )HAMILTONCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )GLENNP.WEBB,JR.,   h   ) B    `     h   )HONORABLEHOWELLN.PEOPLES,  DefendantAppellant.  )  CHANCELLOR  ForAppellant    h     ForAppellee  BRUCEC.BAILEY   h     WILLIAMG.COLVIN !> ALICIABROWNOLIVER   h     PHILLIPE.FLEENOR t" Chambliss,Bahner   h     JANEM.STAHL J# Ѐ&Stophel,P.C.   h     Shumacker&Thompson,P.C.  $  Chattanooga,Tennessee h     Chattanooga,Tennessee $! @$XXXXv ? XXOPINION#XX  ? ##XvXXX #Ԉ 4*3  D:0: P    P    P     AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED h      p      x Susano,J. `   P     P        ` ThisintrafamilylegaldisputearoseoutofarealpropertytransferfromthenowdeceasedGlennP.Webb,Sr.( Mr.Webb)tohisson,thedefendantGlennP.Webb,Jr.( PatWebb).OneofMr.Webbsdaughters,PattyWebb,filedthisactionseekingtosetasideawarrantydeedtoPatWebbconveyingMr.Webbsinterestinanineacretractofproperty.ShealsoϜsought  #  1      כtoinvalidateapowerofattorneythatMr.Webbhad >  МgrantedtoPatWebbimmediatelyfollowingMr.Webbsexecutionofthewarrantydeed.Lessthanamonthafterthesedocumentswereexecuted,Mr.Webbdied,andtheexecutorofhisestate,FirstTennesseeBank,N.A.( FirstTennessee),wassubstitutedasϜplaintiffinthislitigation.Followingabenchtrial,thecourtheldthattheexecutionofthepowerofattorneyhadcreatedaconfidentialrelationshipbetweenMr.Webbandhisson,thusgivingrisetoapresumptionthatPatWebbhadprocuredtheconveyanceofthesubjectpropertybyundueinfluence.Thetrialcourtfoundthatthispresumptionhadnotbeenrebuttedbyclearandconvincingevidenceand,consequently,setasidethewarrantydeed.PatWebbappealed,raisingthefollowingtwoissues,astakenverbatimfromhisbrief:  8 ` 1.DidtheChancellorerrinexpanding Matlockv. R-#+ Simpson ,902S.W.2d382(Tenn.1995),beyondits 8.$, languageandintenttopresume,asamatteroflaw,thatGlennP.Webb,Jr.undulyinfluencedhisfather,wherehisfatherfirstexecutedawarrantydeedinfavorofGlennP.Webb,Jr.andlatergrantedGlennP.Webb,Jr.anunrestrictedpowerofattorney? ` `    8 ` 2.DidtheChancellorerrbyfindingnoevidencethatGlennP.Webb,Sr.hadindependentadviceavailableregardingtheexecutionofthewarrantydeedinfavorofGlennP.Webb,Jr.wherethe z7.7 evidenceshowedthatGlennP.Webb,Sr.hadtalkedtohisownattorney,FredT.Hanzelik? ` `   @&I.Facts  P    ` Mr.Webbwasthefatheroffourchildrenhisnamesake,PatWebb,BarbaraStanfield,PattyWebbandDebbieWebb.Heoriginallyplacedthefeeinthesubjectproperty,whichconsistsofapproximatelynineacres,intoatrustforthebenefitofhischildren.Atsomepoint,Mr.Webballowedhisdaughter,Barbara,andherhusband,PaulStanfield,tomovetheirmobilehomebusinessontothesubjectproperty.Inexchange,theStanfieldsweretopayrenttoPattyWebbandtoFirstTennessee,astrusteeforDebbieWebb,whosuffersfromamentaldisability.TheStanfieldsalsoagreedtoemployDebbieattheirmobilehomebusiness.Sometimelater,however,Mr.WebbdeterminedthattheStanfieldshadnotmadetherentalpaymentsforDebbiesbenefit.BelievingthattheStanfieldshadalsomistreatedDebbie,Mr.Webbsoughttoreacquirethepropertyfromhischildren.HepurchasedtheonefourthinterestsofPat,PattyandDebbie,butBarbararefusedtoselltheremainingonefourthinterestvestedinher.   ` Mr.WebbsubsequentlyfiledapartitionsuitinHamiltonCountyCircuitCourtseekingtohavethepropertysold.Mr.Webbwasrepresentedinthatactionbytwoattorneys,FredHanzelikandBrianMansfield.TheCircuitCourtenteredanorderdirectingthesaleoftheproperty,butthatjudgmentwasappealed.   #  2      כWhiletheappealwaspending,Mr.Webbsuffereda 06,6 seriousdeclineinhishealth.OnDecember24,1994,heexecutedapowerofattorneyappointingPattyWebbashisattorneyinfact.OnJanuary17,1995,Mr.WebbexecutedanotherpowerofattorneytoPattyWebbauthorizinghertomakedecisionsregardinghishealthcare.Shortlythereafter,however,Mr.WebbbecameupsetwiththewayPattywasusingthepowerofattorney.  #  3       H     ` Ashisphysicalconditiondeteriorated,Mr.WebbwashospitalizedatvarioustimesbetweenJanuary18andhisdeathonMarch6,1995.OnFebruary15,1995,whilebedriddenathome,Mr.WebbexecutedawarrantydeedtransferringhisthreefourthsinterestinthesubjectpropertytoPatWebb.Immediatelythereafter,heexecutedanewpowerofattorneyinfavorofPatWebbandrevokedthetwopowersofattorneygrantedtoPattyWebb.AlthoughMr.Webbwasnothospitalizedwhenheexecutedthesedocuments,he  returnedtothehospitalonFebruary18andapparentlyremainedthereuntilhisdeathonMarch6,1995.   ` OnFebruary17,1995,PattyWebbfiledthecomplaintinthiscase,seekinganorderrestrainingPatWebbfrominterferingwithherdutiesasMr.Webbsattorneyinfact,aswellasanordersettingasidetheFebruary15,1995warrantydeed.Aspreviouslyindicated,FirstTennessee,asexecutorofMr.Webbsestate,subsequentlywassubstitutedasplaintiff.   ` Thecaseproceededtotrial,atwhichtimevariouswitnessestestifiedastoMr.Webbsintentionsregardingthesubjectproperty,aswellashisphysicalandmentalconditionon 6,6 andaroundFebruary15,1995.Dr.MaryC.Hammock,whotreatedMr.Webb,testifiedbydepositionthatMr.Webbhadsufferedfromcongestiveheartdisease,obstructivepulmonarydisease,anddementia,andthathismentalconditionhadfluctuatedindirectproportiontohisphysicalstate.ShestatedthatMr.WebbhadbeenhospitalizedfromJanuary31,1995toFebruary9,1995,andthathehadbeenreadmittedtothehospitalonFebruary18,atwhichtimehehad,inheropinion,beenincapableofreadingorunderstandingdocuments.Dr.HammocktestifiedthatalthoughshedidnotseeMr.WebbonFebruary15,itislikelythathewasalreadyintohislastillnessatthattime.   ` SeveralwitnessestestifiedthatMr.WebbwascoherentonFebruary15,whenheexecutedthedocumentsinquestion,andthathehadbeenfullyawareofwhathewasdoingatthetime.However,thereisaconflictinthetestimonyregardingMr.Webbsintentionsinexecutingthosedocuments.Forexample,BrianMansfieldtestifiedthatMr.Webbhadexpressedadesirethatthepropertybeheldforthebenefitofhisdaughters,PattyandDebbie.ThistestimonywasreinforcedbyHarryMansfield,Mr.Webbsfriend,whostatedthatMr.WebbhadtoldhimhehadplacedthepropertyinhissonsnamesothathecouldhandleitssaleandthengivetheproceedstoPattyandDebbie.PattyWebbandBarbaraStanfieldeachtestifiedthatPatWebbhadtoldthemthattheirfatherhadplacedthepropertyinhisnamesohecouldhandlethependingappealofthepartitionsuit.FredHanzelik,oneofMr.Webbsattorneys,testifiedthatMr.Webbhadexplainedtohimthathehadexecutedthewarrantydeedtoenable PatWebbtousethepropertyforhisbusiness,andtokeepthe 7`.8 Stanfieldsfromusingit.PatWebb,forhispart,testifiedthathisfatherhadwantedhimtohavetheproperty.    ` Attheconclusionofthetrial,thetrialcourtfoundthattherewas overwhelmingevidenceintherecordthatthelegaleffectof[thewarrantydeed]wastoactuallyfrustrateMr.Webb,Sr.sintentionsofprovidingforhisdaughters,DebbieandPatty.ItalsoheldthattheFebruary15,1995,powerofattorneyhadcreatedaconfidentialrelationshipbetweenPatWebbandhisfather,andthatthefactthatthepowerofattorneywasexecutedimmediatelyafter,ratherthanbefore,thesigningof  thewarrantydeedwasofnoconsequence.Thus,thetrialcourtfoundthat,inaccordancewith Matlockv.Simpson ,902S.W.2d384 X (Tenn.1995),theconfidentialrelationshipgaverisetoapresumptionofundueinfluenceonthepartofPatWebbinsecuringthetransferofthesubjectproperty.Itwentontofindthatthispresumptionhadnotbeenrebuttedbyclearandconvincingevidenceofthefairnessofthetransferoftherealproperty.Specifically,thetrialcourtnotedanabsenceofanyevidencetoindicatethatMr.Webbhadreceivedthebenefitofindependentadvice.Accordingly,thetrialcourtorderedthatthewarrantydeedbesetaside,andthatownershipofthethreefourthsinterestinthepropertyberestoredtoMr.Webbsestate.  #  4      כ /P&. ̜  3)2 Л@II.StandardofReview `     ` Ourreviewofthisnonjurycaseisdenovouponthe  h recordoftheproceedingsbelow;however,thatrecordcomestouswithapresumptionthatthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsarecorrect.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.Wemusthonorthispresumptionunlesswefindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings. Id.;UnionCarbideCorp.v.Huddleston ,854S.W.2d87, (  91(Tenn.1993); OldFarmBakery,Inc.v.MaxwellAssoc. ,872   S.W.2d682,684(Tenn.App.1993).Thetrialcourtsconclusionsoflaw,however,arenotaffordedthesamedeference. Campbell ` v.FloridaSteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996); Presley ( v.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn.1993).     ` Wealsonotethewellsettledprinciplethatbecausethetrialcourtisinthebestpositiontoassessthecredibilityofthewitnesses,suchdeterminationsareentitledtogreatweightonappeal. Kellermanv.FoodLion,Inc. ,929S.W.2d333, X&" 335(Tenn.1996); Massengalev.Massengale ,915S.W.2d818,819  ($ (Tenn.App.1995).Inthepast,wehaveappliedthisdeferentialstandardinanactiontosetasideadeedconveyingrealproperty.See Brownv.Weik ,725S.W.2d938,946(Tenn.App. 8-#* 1983).@<< III.ApplicableLaw P2(0    ` Thegeneralruleapplicableinthiscaseprovidesthat  8 ` [where]aconfidentialrelationship[exists],followedbyatransactionwhereinthedominant 9|09 partyreceivesabenefitfromtheotherparty,apresumptionofundueinfluencearises,thatmayberebuttedonlybyclearandconvincingevidenceofthefairnessofthetransaction. ` `   Matlockv.Simpson ,902S.W.2d384,386(Tenn.1995);seealso, ,  Johnsonv.Craycraft ,914S.W.2d506,51011(Tenn.App.1995);    Brownv.Weik ,725S.W.2d938,945(Tenn.App.1983).A \   confidentialrelationshiphasbeendefinedingeneraltermsas anyrelationshipwhichgivesonepersondominionandcontroloveranother. Mitchellv.Smith ,779S.W.2d384,389(Tenn.App. t 1989); Kellyv.Allen ,558S.W.2d845,848(Tenn.1977).The < SupremeCourthasnotedthatthenormalparentchildrelationshipisnotperseaconfidentialrelationship. Matlock ,902S.W.2d   at385(citing Kelly ,558S.W.2dat848);seealso, Mitchell ,779 t S.W.2dat389.However,theSupremeCourthasheldthat anunrestrictedpowerofattorney,inandofitself,createsaconfidentialrelationshipbetweentheparties. Matlock ,902 # S.W.2dat386(citing Mitchell ,779S.W.2dat389). %T!    ` Theburdenofproofastoaconfidentialrelationshiprestswiththepartyclaimingtheexistenceofsucharelationship. Brown ,725S.W.2dat945.Asstatedin Matlock , t,#) onceaconfidentialrelationshipisestablishedandapresumptionofundueinfluencearises,thepresumptionmaybeovercomeonlybyclearandconvincingevidencethatthetransactionwasfair.   #  5      ׀ 1,(/  Id. at386;seealso, Johnson ,914S.W.2dat51011.One,but 43)1 certainlynottheonly,wayofprovingfairnesssoastorebut 4+3 thepresumptionistoestablishthatthedonorhadthebenefitofindependentadvicepriortothetransaction. Richmondv.   Christian ,555S.W.2d105,10708(Tenn.1977); Billsv.Lindsay ,  p 909S.W.2d434,441(Tenn.App.1993).TheSupremeCourthasdescribedadequateindependentadviceasfollows:  8 ` properindependentadviceinthisconnectionmeansthatthedonorhadthepreliminarybenefitofconferringfullyandprivatelyuponthesubjectof 8  hisintendedgiftwithapersonwhowasnotonlycompetenttoinformhimcorrectlyastoitslegaleffectbutwhowasfurthermoresodisassociatedfromtheinterestsofthedoneeastobeinapositiontoadvisewiththedonorimpartiallyandconfidentlyastotheconsequencestohimselfofhisproposedbenefactions. ` `   Richmond ,555S.W.2dat109(quotingfrom Turnerv.Leathers ,232 ` S.W.2d269,271(Tenn.1950))(emphasisin Richmond opinion.) (  @$IV.Analysis #8    ` WeshallfirstaddressthequestionofwhetherthetrialcourterredinpresumingundueinfluencebasedontheconfidentialrelationshipbetweenMr.Webbandhisson.PatWebbinsiststhatbecausethepowerofattorneyinhisfavorwasexecutedafterthewarrantydeedalbeitimmediatelyfollowing -@$+ thedeedsexecutionnosuchconfidentialrelationshipexistedatthetimethepropertywasconveyed,andthatthetrialcourtthuserredinfindingthatthepresumptionofundueinfluencehadarisenastothattransaction.Insupportofhisargument,PatWebbpointstothelanguageof Matlock ,whichstatesthatthe 6,5 presumptionofundueinfluenceariseswherethereis aconfidentialrelationship,followedbyatransactionwhereinthe p909 dominantpartyreceivesabenefitfromtheotherparty.... Matlock ,902S.W.2dat386(emphasisadded).Healsocitesthe    Johnson case,citedabove,aswellastheunreporteddecisionof  p thiscourtin Gartonv.Norman ,1996WL325215(Tenn.App.,June 8 14,1996).In Johnson ,wefoundthatthepresumptionofundue ` influencehadarisenastotransactionsafter,butnotbefore,theexecutionofapowerofattorney. Id. at51011.Likewise, p  in Garton ,weheldthataconfidentialrelationshipdidnotarise 8  untilthepowerofattorneyinquestionbecameeffective. Id. at ` *5.   ` Despitetheseholdings,wecannotagreewithPatWebbsassertion.Although Matlock,Johnson and Garton indicatethata   confidentialrelationshipdoesnotariseuntilanunrestrictedpowerofattorneybecomeseffective,PatWebbacknowledgesandweagreethatnoneofthesecasesaddressthesituationwhere,ashere,apowerofattorneyisexecutedatessentiallythesametimeasthechallengedtransfer.See Matlock ,902S.W.2dat385 &(" 86; Johnson ,914S.W.2dat51012;  #  6      כ Garton ,1996WLat*25.We P($ believethatwhereapowerofattorneyisexecutedcontemporaneouslywithawarrantydeedconveyingpropertytothepartywhoisnamedattorneyinfact,thereisnolegalsignificancetotheorderinwhichthetwodocumentsareexecuted.Whetherthetwoeventsaresufficientlycontemporaneousnecessarilywilldependonthefactsofeachcase.Inthisinstance,therecordreflectsthatMr.Webbexecutedthepowerofattorneywithinminutesoftheexecutionof 5P,4 thewarrantydeed,andasapartofthesame sitting.Hence,theexecutionofthetwodocumentscanbefairlydescribedasoneintegratedtransaction.Underthesecircumstances,wecannotsaythatthetrialcourterredinapplyingthepresumptionofundueinfluencetotheconveyanceofthepropertyinquestion.  #  7      כ  Accordingly,PatWebbsfirstissueisfoundtobewithoutmerit.   ` PatWebbnextcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinfindingthattherewasnoevidencethatMr.Webbhadreceivedthebenefitofindependentadviceregardingtheexecutionofthewarrantydeed.Specifically,hearguesthatMr.Webbdidconsultwithhisownattorney,FredHanzelik,regardingthetransaction.   ` Asindicatedearlier,proofofindependentadvicesufficienttorebutthepresumptionofundueinfluencerequiresproofthatthedonorhadtheopportunitytoconfer fullyandprivatelywithonewhowascompetenttoadvisehimregardingtheeffectofthegiftandwhowas sodisassociatedfromtheinterestsofthedoneeastobeabletoadvisethedonorimpartially. Richmondv.Christian ,555S.W.2d105,109(Tenn. (x& 1977); Turnerv.Leathers ,232S.W.2d269,271(Tenn.1950). *@!(    ` Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtfoundthatthepowerofattorneywaspreparedbyFredHanzelikatPatWebbs /X&.  request,and,thatHanzelikwasthenactingasPatWebbs x1(0 attorney.  #  8      כItfurtherfoundthatMr.Webbhadnotunderstoodthe `   ramificationsofhisexecutionofthepowerofattorney,eventhoughhehaddiscusseditwithHanzelik.Thetrialcourtalsonotedthatthewarrantydeedhadbeenpreparedbyanindividual̄notHanzelikwhohadnevertalkedtoMr.Webb.ThatindividualhadpreparedthedeedatthedirectionofanemployeeofPatWebb.ThereisnoevidencethatHanzelikoranyothercompetentpersonadvisedMr.WebbregardingthewarrantydeedpriortoitsexecutiononFebruary15,1995."  #  9      כThetrialcourt @  concludedthattherewas overwhelmingevidence...thatthelegaleffectof[thewarrantydeed]wastoactuallyfrustrateMr.Webb,Sr.sintentionsofprovidingforhisdaughters,DebbieandPatty.   ` Thequestionofwhetheradonorhashadthebenefitoftherequisiteindependentadvicenecessarilyturnsonthefactsofeachcase,and,obviously,thetestimonyofthewitnesses.Aswehavenoted,thetrialcourtisinthebestpositiontoassessthecredibilityofthewitnesses;thus,suchdeterminationsareaffordedgreatdeference. Kellermanv.FoodLion,Inc. ,929 (x& S.W.2d333,335(Tenn.1996); Massengalev.Massengale ,915 *@!( S.W.2d818,819(Tenn.App.1995); Brownv.Weik ,725S.W.2d938, h,#* 946(Tenn.App.1983).Intheinstantcase,thetrialjudgemadeanassessmentofthecredibilityofthevariouswitnessesanddeterminedthatMr.Webbhadnot had receivedindependentadvicepriortoconveyingthesubjectpropertytohisson.Wecannot (3)2 saythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthisfinding.Bythesametoken,wedonotfindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsconcomitantholdingthatMr.Webbdidnotfullycomprehendthathisunconditionalexecutionofthewarrantydeedwasatvariancewithhisexpressedintentions.   ` Thetrialcourtalsodetermined,consideringalloftheevidence,thatPatWebbhadfailedtorebutthepresumptionofundueinfluencebypresentingclearandconvincingevidenceofthetransactionsfairness.See Matlock ,902S.W.2dat386; H  Richmond ,555S.W.2dat10708; Johnson ,914S.W.2dat511.  Afteracarefulreviewoftherecord,wecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthefactualfindingsunderlying thisdetermination thetrialcourtsjudgment .Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.@#V.Conclusion x"    ` Itthereforeresultsthatthetrialcourtsordersettingasidethewarrantydeedbecauseofundueinfluenceisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary,consistentwiththisopinion.   `     h     __________________________   `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.̜       CONCUR:_________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.̜  _________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.  9`0: