## Facts

- Juanita Lynch owned a 40-acre tract of land and, on August 30, 2004, executed a deed conveying it to her daughter, Rebecca Lynch Hamrick.
- Hamrick took Juanita to attorney Julie Wills (who advertised elder-law services) for a will change and the land conveyance; Hamrick provided Wills a “Chronology of Events” indicating other property had been conveyed to Juanita’s son, Buddy Lynch.
- Wills was cautious because a potential beneficiary brought the elderly client; Wills believed Juanita was competent and that the plan (including the deed) reflected an even division between the children.
- Wills later called Juanita at home to confirm Juanita’s wishes outside Hamrick’s presence and to check for influence.
- At a second appointment, Wills met with Juanita alone; Juanita confirmed she wanted to deed the property to Hamrick because Buddy had received other property.
- Juanita executed the deed at the second meeting; Wills notarized it, and Hamrick’s husband recorded it the next day.
- After Buddy learned of the transfer, he sued as Juanita’s attorney-in-fact to set aside the deed, alleging Hamrick induced the conveyance with promises to care for Juanita; Juanita intervened seeking the same relief.
- Hamrick sought Wills’s deposition; the Lynches moved to quash based on attorney-client privilege. The trial court allowed Wills to testify about the deed’s preparation and execution and later refused to set aside the deed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by permitting the drafting attorney to testify about communications and circumstances surrounding execution of the deed, over an attorney-client privilege objection.
2. Whether the evidence required setting aside the deed on the theory that a promise of future support was part of the deed’s consideration under Alabama law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the trial court did not exceed its discretion in ruling that attorney-client privilege did not bar Wills’s testimony.
- The court left intact the trial court’s finding that the Lynches failed to prove a promise of support formed part of the consideration for the conveyance.
- Because the challenged testimony was properly admitted and the factual findings were supported by the record, the deed was not set aside.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court’s determination whether a privilege applies is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The party asserting attorney-client privilege bears the burden to show the communications were confidential and made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.
- Communications made in the presence of a third party who is not necessary to the attorney-client relationship generally are not confidential for privilege purposes.
- An appellate court will not disturb trial-court fact findings on the consideration for a deed, including alleged support-based consideration, where supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the deed because the privilege objection failed for lack of a sufficient showing of confidentiality, and the challengers did not prove that a bargained-for promise of future care was part of the consideration for the conveyance.


Lynch v. Hamrick, 968 So. 2d 11 (Ala. 2007)