## Facts

- Nancy Porch Hooper was hospitalized for Alzheimer’s disease and, after returning home, required twenty-four-hour nursing care.
- Hooper hired Laverne Krida and Mattie Ruth Reeves to provide around-the-clock in-home care.
- Before Krida and Reeves began working for Hooper, she had a positive, trusting relationship with family and friends.
- Hooper’s niece managed Hooper’s finances without compensation, kept accurate records, and tried to honor Hooper’s stated fear of being placed in a nursing home.
- After being hired, Krida and Reeves intentionally isolated Hooper from family and friends and took steps to control access to her.
- Krida and Reeves falsely told Hooper that her family was wasting or misusing her money and intended to put her in a nursing home, exploiting Hooper’s fear of institutionalization.
- Krida assumed control over Hooper’s finances and obtained an unrestricted power of attorney from Hooper.
- The nurses interfered with Hooper’s prior legal and financial relationships, replacing former professional contacts and discouraging or preventing communications between Hooper and others.
- The nurses also threatened Hooper’s family with legal action, further limiting the family’s ability to see or communicate with Hooper.
- During this period, Hooper executed a will and a deed that transferred substantial property interests to Krida and Reeves.
- After Hooper’s death, an heir challenged the will and deed; following a bench trial, the trial court set both instruments aside as the product of fraud and undue influence.
- Krida and Reeves appealed the judgment setting aside the will and deed.

## Issues

1. Whether a presumption of fraud and undue influence arises when caregivers in a confidential relationship isolate a dependent testator, make false statements that the testator relies upon, and then receive major benefits under a will and deed.
2. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s findings of fraud and undue influence sufficient to invalidate both the will and the deed.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment setting aside the will and deed.
- The court concluded the evidence supported findings that Krida and Reeves were in a confidential relationship with Hooper and exercised dominion and control over her access to others and over her financial affairs.
- The court agreed that the nurses’ isolation of Hooper, combined with false statements about her family and her finances and the substantial benefits they received, supported a finding of fraud and undue influence.
- The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations and held that the proof did not preponderate against the trial court’s conclusions.

## Legal Principles

- A confidential relationship between a transferor and a beneficiary, coupled with suspicious circumstances and a substantial benefit to the dominant party, can raise a presumption of undue influence.
- False statements made to a testator or grantor, when relied upon in executing a will or conveyance, may support findings of fraud and undue influence.
- Evidence of isolation, control over access to the person, interference with established professional relationships, and control of finances may be treated as suspicious circumstances supporting the presumption.
- When the presumption arises, the burden shifts to the beneficiary to show the transaction reflected the transferor’s free and independent intent, often through proof of fairness and meaningful independence from the beneficiary’s control.
- Undue influence and fraud principles may invalidate both testamentary instruments and related inter vivos transfers when procured through the same course of conduct.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed setting aside Hooper’s will and deed because her live-in caregivers, acting from a position of trust and control, isolated her, misrepresented her family’s intentions and handling of money, took over her financial affairs through an unrestricted power of attorney, and then procured instruments that transferred significant benefits to themselves, supporting findings of fraud and undue influence.


Puckett v. Krida, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 502 (1994)