Tennessee Son’s Abuse of Power of Attorney Set Aside Due to Undue Influence & Fraud

Tennessee law case summary on fraud and undue influence in family law.

Dorothy Lewis v. Sam Lewis – Tennessee undue influence and fraud

Dorothy and Roscoe Lewis were never legally married, but held themselves out as husband and wife for over 41 years.  Roscoe had three sons from a prior marriage.  In 2011, Dorothy and Roscoe executed powers of attorney giving one of the sons control over their affairs, and Dorothy and Roscoe were added to bank accounts that had previously been in only one name.  They also conveyed property to him.

Dorothy brought this action asking to have the transfers set aside because of undue influence.

The trial court agreed, and set aside the transfers on the grounds of undue influence and conversion and fraud.  Dorothy was also awarded attorney fees.  He then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first summarized the doctrine of undue influence.  It is generally established by showing suspicious circumstances warranting the conclusion that the action was not the person’s free and independent act.

The court carefully considered the evidence and the lower court’s conclusions and agreed that there had been undue influence in this case.  Because of the powers of attorney, there had been a confidential relationship.  And there were numerous suspicious circumstances, including Roscoe’s advanced age and health problems.  There were discrepancies between Roscoe’s stated intentions and what the son actually did with the money and property.

Overall, the appeals court concluded that the evidence did not preponderate against the lower court’s ruling.  Therefore, it affirmed the finding of undue influence.

The court then turned to the issue of attorney fees.  Normally, under the American rule, each party pays his or her own attorney fees.  There is an exception, however, in the case of fraud or misrepresentation.  The trial court had based its ruling on this exception.  However, misrepresentation requires a false statement of a present fact.  The lower court had made no specific finding of any such misrepresentation, instead focusing on the egregious nature of the son’s conduct.  Since there was no misrepresentation, the appeals court held that the award of attorney fees was improper and reversed.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, but reversed the award of attorney fees.

No. E2014-00105-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2015).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.