Tennessee Business Litigation Lawyers Blog

Unfairness and Favoritism Do Not Equal Undue Influence

Published on: March 12, 2016 | by J. Ross Pepper

Two fairly recent Tennessee undue influence cases prove a point: To win an undue influence case, the plaintiff (or contestant if it is a will contest) must prove more than mere unfairness or favoritism.

Both cases involved alleged undue influence with respect to deeds for land. In the first case, Bunch v. Bunch, a mother owned 35 acres of land. While the mother was alive, she deeded about half of the acreage to her daughter. At her death, the other half of her land passed to her daughter and son equally.

After the mother passed away, the daughter brought a partition action to have the land which was left to her and her brother jointly sold and the proceeds divided. The son filed a counterclaim against the daughter, his sister, in which he alleged that the deed wherein his mother transferred half of her land to her daughter was the result of the undue influence of the daughter.

Recovering Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to a “Prevailing Party” Contractual Provision

Published on: February 26, 2016 | by J. Ross Pepper

Under Tennessee law, which follows the “American Rule,” a winning party cannot recover its attorney’s fees from the losing party. There are a couple of exceptions to that Rule. One of those exceptions is that a party can recover its attorney’s fees if there is a contractual provision whereby the parties agreed to the same.

Many contracts do contain what are referred to as “fee shifting” clauses or “attorney’s fees” clauses. Frequently, in breach of contract cases, there is a contractual provision involved which provides that the prevailing party is entitled to recover its attorney’s fees and expenses from the other party.

What if a party does not have an outright win, but only wins on some issues? Whether the case involves a breach of contract or real estate dispute, both sides are most likely to allege numerous claims and defenses and to put many issues before the court for resolution.

A recent case involving restrictive covenants in a subdivision plat dealt with the question of whether parties who prevailed on some of their claims, but not all of them, were prevailing parties. In addition to the many other provisions in the restrictive covenants in the plat, there was a provision which stated: “In the event litigation is implemented for the enforcement of these covenants, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of attorney fees as additional damages.”

What Happens When Another Relative Has Filed the Will Contest Case?

Published on: February 21, 2016 | by J. Ross Pepper

In any Tennessee will contest case, there may be a number of relatives of the deceased who will benefit from the will contest case if the Will at issue is set aside. There might also be non-relative beneficiaries of a previous Will who will benefit if the Will is set aside. In such circumstances, who has the right to file the will contest case? In such circumstances, do relatives or beneficiaries who have not filed the will contest case have a right to join the case? Should the other relatives or beneficiaries join the will contest case as parties?

For answers to the above questions, let’s use a hypothetical and assume these facts:

Mother dies leaving six children
One of the children is Sister Susan
All of her life, Mother made it clear that she wanted her children to receive her assets in equal shares
Just before her death, when she was weak and dependent on Sister Susan, Mother executed a Will which bequeathed most all of her assets to Sister Susan
Mother had never executed any other Will

Following Mother’s death, Sister Susan offers the Will for probate. Right after, Brother Bill, one of the six children of Mother, hires a will contest lawyer and files a will contest case based on incompetency and undue influence.

Under Tennessee law, none of the other siblings is required to join the will contest case filed by Brother Bill. Under Tennessee law, they can if they want to do so, but should they? Whether they should or should not depends on the circumstances of each case.

Departing Physician Entitled to Accounts Receivable and Not Liable for Future Rent

Published on: January 31, 2016 | by J. Ross Pepper

In a recent breach of contract case involving a physician’s claim for accounts receivable after he left the partnership in which he was a partner (the ”Partnership”), the physician prevailed on his claims. The physician (the “Plaintiff”) also prevailed as to the counterclaim of his former partners who counter-sued him claiming that he was liable for future rent due under a lease entered into by the Partnership. The case, Pendola M.D., P.C. v. Assoc. Neurologists of Kingsport (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016), involved the following facts:

The Plaintiff joined a Partnership of other neurologists in 1996
The Plaintiff became a partner one year later
At the time Plaintiff became a partner, he signed a Partnership Agreement
In 2008, after Plaintiff became a partner, the Partnership signed a ten year lease for a building with an annual rental rate of $216,000
Plaintiff claimed that he was not informed of the signing of the lease until more than one year after it was signed
In 2011, Plaintiff gave his 180 day notice that he was leaving the Partnership

The Plaintiff filed a breach of contract lawsuit after the Partnership refused to pay him the accounts receivable to which he claimed that he was due. The Partnership counter-sued alleging that the Plaintiff was liable for his pro rata portion of rent due for another eight years after Plaintiff’s departure.

The Partnership Agreement clearly provided that the Plaintiff was entitled to receive his accounts receivable after he left the Partnership. The Partnership based its argument that Plaintiff was liable for future rent on a “hold harmless” provision in the Partnership Agreement.

Undue Influence of Son Results in Will Being Declared Invalid

Published on: January 25, 2016 | by J. Ross Pepper

Tennessee will contest cases, especially will contests where the basis for trying to set aside the will is undue influence, are often all about suspicious circumstances. As Tennessee courts have observed for years, in many cases (I believe most), the only way to prove undue influence is by circumstantial evidence. What Tennessee courts have declared are “suspicious circumstances” are just that — circumstantial evidence of undue influence.

A recent undue influence case exemplifies how a combination of suspicious circumstances can result in the setting aside of a Will even when there was no single piece of evidence of undue influence that was, in and of itself, particularly compelling. This case is important to understand because it is, in my experience, pretty infrequent to have an undue influence case where there is anything close to “smoking gun” evidence of undue influence. Undue influencers are generally cunning, nontransparent and, often, keep the person whom they are influencing so isolated from others that there is little or no direct evidence of their actions.

A combination of suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will of a father (“Father”) who disinherited his daughters and left everything to his son (“Son”) caused a Tennessee trial court to set aside that Will. The ruling of the trial court was affirmed in all respects by the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, so I will focus on what facts where before the trial court to cause it to set aside the Will based on the undue influence of the Son.

Life Insurance Policy Proceeds: How Tennessee Law Protects Those Proceeds for Surviving Children and Spouses

Published on: January 15, 2016 | by J. Ross Pepper

There are Tennessee statutes which protect the proceeds of life insurance policies for surviving spouses and children even when the deceased parent may have owed creditors more money than the policy benefits at the time of his or her death. Not only do the statutes protect the proceeds of life insurance policies, but also, they protect the cash value of life insurance policies and annuities while the parent is alive.

The two statutes which provide protection to surviving spouses and children are T.C.A. §56-7-201 and §56-7-203. Here are some examples of how they work.

Assume that, at Dad’s death, he had a $100,000 life insurance policy in effect, but had named no beneficiary for whatever reason. At Dad’s death, he has lots of debt. Will Dad’s creditors be able to collect from the proceeds of his life insurance policy? After all, he did not designate a beneficiary? The answer is “no.”

If Dad did not name a beneficiary, the life insurance proceeds will be payable to his estate. Under T.C.A. §56-7-201, whether Dad died with a Will (testate) or without a Will (intestate), the proceeds will not be subject to the claims of creditors if Dad died with a surviving spouse and children or either. Under that statute, if Dad died without a Will, the life insurance proceeds must be distributed to his surviving spouse and children according to the statutes that delineate how assets are to be distributed when someone dies without a Will.

Recovering Pre-Judgment Interest in Tennessee Breach of Contract Cases

Published on: January 2, 2016 | by J. Ross Pepper

Pre-judgment interest is the interest which accrues from the date an obligation is due to the plaintiff until the day the judge or jury enters a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Given that a breach of contact case or other commercial litigation case may take a year or more to get to the point where a verdict is rendered once the case is filed, pre-judgment interest can be substantial in many cases. Consider also that, for various reasons, many cases are not filed until months, even years, after the debt was due to the plaintiff.

Where the parties in litigation do not have a contract about the amount of any interest due, as is often the case, T.C.A. §47-14-123 allows a judge or jury to award pre-judgment interest at any rate not in excess of ten percent (10%). Under Tennessee case law, if you are relying on the statute for pre-judgment interest, you can never receive anything more than simple interest. You cannot compound statutorily awarded pre-judgment interest.

Partition Lawsuits in Tennessee: Practical Considerations

Published on: December 20, 2015 | by J. Ross Pepper

Where parties own real property jointly, and one party has announced his or her intention to sell, the most sensible approach for the other owner or owners to take is to cooperate with the owner who wants to sell. If co-owners can cooperate, they can save themselves attorneys’ fees and a substantial amount of hassle. The key agreements which co-owners must reach are the agreement on the terms of the sale and the agreement on how the net sales proceeds will be divided.

Many times, it is not possible for co-owners to agree on how to go about selling the property. The reasons are many.

Once I take on a partition case, I will first try to determine whether any type of agreement can be reached regarding the sale of the property before I file a partition lawsuit. In most cases, by the time I am hired, there is no hope of agreement between the co-owners, at least until a partition action is underway and the other co-owners are forced to accept the reality of the situation.

Iron Stakes Win Boundary Line Dispute Over Deed Descriptions

Published on: December 5, 2015 | by J. Ross Pepper

Any Tennessee boundary line case will most likely turn into a classic “battle of the experts” where both parties use a surveyor as their expert witness. In cases where both parties have reputable surveyors, how does the court pick the winner?

A boundary line case which recently reached the Court of Appeals of Tennessee provides some solid insight into how a Tennessee court will approach and decide a boundary line dispute where two surveyors come to different conclusions. The case, Haddad Family Partnership v. Pouncey, involved the following facts:

The Pouncey property, about 430 acres of farmland, lay directly to the north of the Haddad property, about 208 acres of farmland
A field road was located on the north part of the Haddad property, and the Haddad family always considered the field road and everything south of it to be their property
According to Pouncey, the field road, over the years, had been moved north and was located on his property
A dispute arose and both parties hired surveyors
The Haddad family used a surveyor named Erwin
Pouncey used a surveyor named Van Boals
Erwin concluded that the field road was on the Haddad property
Van Boals determined that the field road was on the Pouncey property
The discrepancy between the surveys of Erwin and Van Boals was significant – – – almost 50 feet

To determine the correct boundary line, Erwin did the following:

He examined the deeds of the Haddad property and adjoining properties and created a computer generated title map based on the legal descriptions of the properties in the deeds
He discovered that the latest Haddad deed was incomplete because it included a specific bearing and distance for only three sides of the Haddad property
He determined that, because of that, the Haddad deed contained an error of closure of 622 feet
Even though there was an error of closure, Erwin determined that each of the deeds from 1910 forward called for the north line of the Haddad property to be common with the south line of the Dunlap Estate which was the predecessor to the Pouncey property
Erwin went to the Haddad property to find any markers, and he found several iron stakes
Erwin found two iron stakes which marked the northwest corner of the Haddad property and the southwest corner of the Pouncey property
Erwin decided to survey the Pouncey property (in addition to the Haddad property) because the latest Haddad deed was incomplete
The Pouncey deed called for an iron stake in a lake, and Erwin located it with a metal detector in three feet of water

Joint Accounts with Rights of Survivorship and Payable on Death Designations

Published on: November 21, 2015 | by J. Ross Pepper

In Tennessee, a bank account, certificate of deposit, money market account, or other type of financial account may be maintained as a joint account with a right of survivorship. Such accounts may also be maintained as single owner accounts, but be made payable on death to a named beneficiary. Payable on death designations are abbreviated as “POD.”

The difference between a single owner account, with no payable on death designation, and a joint account, with a right of survivorship, can have a major effect on relatives and beneficiaries under Wills. The difference between a single owner account and a single owner account with a payable on death designation can also have a major effect on relatives and beneficiaries under Wills.

Let’s assume that I die with $200,000 in undisputed debt, and with $200,000 in a bank account which I own, but which has no payable on death beneficiary. In that case, even if I bequeathed all of my assets to my wife in my Will, and even if I specifically stated in my Will that I wanted her to have all of the money in my bank account, nevertheless, the $200,000 in my bank account at the time of my death would never become my surviving wife’s. Why? The answer is because, at my death, it would become part of my probate estate. Once it became part of my probate estate, it would be subject to the claims of creditors.

For a Consultation(615) 256-4838

Name (Required)Email (Required)Phone (Required)Message I accept the terms and conditions. Terms and Conditions: You are sending a form to an email address of Pepper Law, PLC. Before accepting any representation, Pepper Law's professional obligations require that it determine whether there are any actual or potential conflicts with any current or former clients of the Firm. In addition, we do not accept any representation solely as a result of having been contacted via email. By sending this form, you acknowledge that you will not become a client of Pepper Law, PLC merely by sending this email or by the Firm's receipt of it. Any information you send to this Firm before an attorney-client relationship is acknowledged by the Firm and a representation agreement is signed will not be considered confidential or protected by the attorney-client relationship. Do not send any information in this email that is, or that you wish to be treated as, confidential.