Appellant, Diane Walsh, appeals from a summary judgment in favor of appellees, her present or past husband and two sons. In her complaint, she seeks a reconveyance of real property from the two children to herself and her husband/ex-husband.1 Appellant alleged that her husband’s overbearing, threatening and demeaning manner “took away” her will to resist his efforts to gift her marital properties to their two sons. She argues for reconveyance based on her husband’s undue influence and the existence of a confidential relationship. We find, however, that appellant failed to demonstrate existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Consequently, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees.
Both parties raise essentially the same issue on appeal. Did the district court improperly grant appellees’ motion for summary judgment based upon a finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact? More specifically, we examine the circumstances in this case to determine whether a factual issue is presented based on alleged undue influence and the violation of a confidential relationship resulting from a conveyance of an interest in real estate. This is not a case in which we can take satisfaction in result, but it is also not a case where the law justifies restoration to the donor of her gift which she subsequently demanded be returned.
I. FACTS
Since the record is not fully developed, the somewhat imprecise chronology which follows is gleaned from affidavits presented by both sides in support of motions for summary judgment,2 as well as from appel*833late briefs which include consistent statements of fact filed by the respective parties.
For some time prior to 1987, appellant and her husband, Thomas Walsh, Sr., owned their residence in Casper, Wyoming and a cabin in Dubois, Wyoming.3 The husband had also acquired a four-plex apartment building in Casper for which he faced foreclosure in 1987 because the mortgage and operating expenses regularly exceeded rental income. The record indicates that both appellant and husband feared foreclosure and a possible deficiency judgment which might affect their marital assets. Consequently, they conveyed ownership of the Casper residence and the Du-bois cabin to their two sons, appellees Thomas Walsh, Jr., and Kenneth Edward Walsh, as a “gift”4 by execution and recor-dation of quitclaim deeds in April 1987.
The parties now dispute who dreamed up the transfers and whether or not the appellant’s participation in deed execution was coerced. Appellant contends that she was left mentally disabled following surgery for a brain tumor in 1983 and that her husband’s verbal abuse during the course of their marriage reduced her ability and willingness to act on her own behalf. She also claims that after the properties were transferred, Thomas Walsh, Jr. made an oral promise to appellant that both properties would be reconveyed once the apartment foreclosure issue passed. On the other hand, appellees argue that the property transfers were appellant’s idea and that she was the “moving force” behind the transaction. Both sons further contend that no promise of reconveyance was ever made.
Following the transfers, the husband filed for divorce, contending that the transferred properties should not be considered as marital property in the divorce proceeding. Subsequently, appellant brought her action seeking reconveyance of the two parcels of real property to the marital estate. After submission of affidavits, pretrial memoranda, and a brief in support of appellees’ motion for summary judgment,5 the district court conducted a hearing following which the district court denied her motion for summary judgment and granted the motion of her husband and two sons for summary judgment. This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
We review this summary judgment appeal under W.R.C.P. 56 in accordance with our well-established standard of review. We examine the affidavits and material presented to the district court in support of and in opposition to a motion for summary judgment according to the same standard applied by that court in deciding the motion. Matthews v. Fetzner, 768 P.2d 590, 592 (Wyo.1989). The moving party has the initial burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that summary judgment should be granted as a matter of law. W.R.C.P. 56(c); Stundon v. Sterling, 736 P.2d 317, 318 (Wyo.1987); Cordova v. Gosar, 719 P.2d 625 (Wyo.1986). A material fact is characterized as a fact which, if proven, would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of the claim or defense asserted by the parties. Parker v. Haller, 751 P.2d 372, 375 (Wyo.1988). If movant makes a showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to come forward with specific facts to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact does exist. Nelson v. Crimson Enterprises, Inc., 777 P.2d 73, 76 (Wyo.1989). Conclusive affidavits or general allegations are insufficient and specific facts must be shown. W.R.C.P. 56(e); *834Davenport v. Epperly, 744 P.2d 1110, 1112 (Wyo.1987); Jones Land and Livestock Co. v. Federal Land Bank of Omaha, 733 P.2d 258, 263 (Wyo.1987).
We then examine the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, granting her all favorable inferences which can properly be drawn from the evidence. Wessel v. Mapco, Inc., 752 P.2d 1363, 1367 (Wyo.1988). If there is a dispute over a material fact which leads to conflicting interpretations or if reasonable minds might differ, then summary judgment is improper. Wyoming Game and Fish Com’n v. Mills Co., 701 P.2d 819, 821 (Wyo.1985). On the other hand, a motion for summary judgment brought by a defendant “should be sustained in the absence of a real and material fact issue considering movant’s burden, respondent’s right to the benefit of all favorable inferences and any reasonable doubt, with credibility questions to be resolved by trial.” Cordova, 719 P.2d at 640. When granted, summary judgment is a drastic remedy which deprives a litigant of the right to a trial and must be utilized with caution and restraint. Kobielusz v. Wilson, 701 P.2d 559, 560 (Wyo.1985).
III. GENUINE ISSUE OF-MATERIAL FACT
Appellant asserts that the district court erred by granting a summary judgment in favor of her husband and their two sons. On appeal, she contends that her husband’s exercise of undue influence within the context of a confidential relationship creates a genuine issue of material fact and entitles her to a trial on the merits.
In Estate of Short, 785 P.2d 1167, 1170 (Wyo.1990) (quoting Matter of Estate of Obra, 749 P.2d 272, 277 (Wyo.1988)), we identified the three elements of undue influence: “ ‘(1) opportunity to control; (2) a condition permitting subversion; and (3) activity on the part of the person charged.’ ” Appellant’s complaint and affidavit affirmatively allege that the husband had the opportunity to control appellant, that her impaired mental capacity created a condition permitting his subversion of her will, and that he did, in fact, exercise undue influence as charged. In effect, appellant argues that the application of undue influence upon a susceptible grantor warrants reconveyance of the transferred properties despite the fact that the grantees of the properties were themselves uninvolved in the exercise of any wrongful persuasion or persuasion of any kind.
We discussed the effect of undue influence in Johnson v. Soulis, 542 P.2d 867, 874 (Wyo.1975) (quoting A.L.I. Restatement, Contracts § 497 (1932)):6
“Where one party is under the domination of another, or by virtue of the relation between them is justified in assuming that the other party will 'not act in a manner inconsistent with his welfare, a transaction induced by unfair persuasion of the latter, is induced by undue influence and is voidable.”
Appellant seeks to avoid the transaction by having the district court find that she was unfairly persuaded by her husband to make a gift of the properties in question to their sons. Appellant cites Johnson for support, but then jumps to the proposition that since her husband exercised undue influence over her, their sons, as recipients of the properties, must demonstrate that the transaction was fair and conducted in good faith — something which appellant argues her sons have failed to do.
It is significant that appellant makes no claim that her sons, as grantees of the properties, did themselves provide any encouragement or exercise undue influence. The only allegation appellant raises against her sons is that Thomas Walsh, Jr. promised to reconvey the properties to appellant and her husband after the threat of foreclosure had passed. This allegation is of no consequence, however, since the alleged promise was made after the transfer of *835ownership.7 Thus, though she attempts to hold her sons liable for the behavior of their father, the success of her argument hinges on whether or not she can avoid the transaction based on the alleged undue influence of her husband.
This court has stated that a mere family relationship does not give rise to a confidential relationship. Zullig v. Zullig, 502 P.2d 198, 202 (Wyo.1972). However, we have also stated that once certain circumstances are present, a confidential relationship may be established and the activities of those so related will be zealously scrutinized. Perry v. Vaught, 624 P.2d 776, 783 (Wyo.1981) (citing Bergren v. Bergren, 77 Wyo. 438, 317 P.2d 1101 (1957)); Brug v. Case, 600 P.2d 710 (Wyo.1979); Baldwin v. Birchby, 346 P.2d 278 (Wyo.1959). We must, therefore, determine whether a confidential relationship exists between appellant and her sons.
Appellant cites Baldwin in support of her proposition that a confidential relationship exists. In Baldwin, existence of a confidential relationship between the grant- or father and grantee sons was admitted by the sons. Despite this relationship, the court failed to find undue influence by the sons in violation of the relationship. On other occasions, we have discussed a grantee’s alleged undue influence within the confines of a confidential relationship. For example, in Perry, we found that the grantor’s dependence on grantee created a confidential relationship. We stated that “once a confidential relationship has been demonstrated, the burden then shifts to the recipient of the property to establish that the transaction was fair and conducted in good faith.” Perry, 624 P.2d at 783 (citing Brug, 600 P.2d 710 and Baldwin, 346 P.2d 278).
In Estate of Short, 785 P.2d at 1170 (citing Perry, 624 P.2d 776) (footnote omitted), we reiterated this proposition and said:
If the party challenging the validity of a deed transaction on the basis of undue influence establishes a confidential relationship, the party who received the property has the burden to establish that the transaction was fair and conducted in good faith.
In the present case, appellant fails to establish the existence of a confidential relationship between herself and her sons.
1. Appellant does not allege nor does she show evidence of the existence of a confidential relationship between herself and her sons which involved the deeds.
2. The sons do not admit the existence of such a relationship. Cf. Baldwin, 346 P.2d 278.
3. There is no evidence of appellant having been dependent on the grantees. Cf. Perry, 624 P.2d 776.
4. There is no evidence to suggest that the sons actually became involved in some fashion in the consideration from which the conveyance did result. Consequently, there was no allegation or factual evidence reflecting exercise of any influence.
Nevertheless, appellant suggests that her sons should be burdened with demonstrating that they received the properties fairly and in good faith. We disagree and rely on the reasoning set forth in Zullig, 502 P.2d at 202, where we said:
It has been held that even where there is a confidential relationship the burden is not upon the child as grantee to show the *836absence of fraud and undue influence unless it be shown he exercised some activity in procuring the deed or if the transaction was without consideration, Osterberg v. Osterberg, 68 Cal.App.2d 254, 156 P.2d 46, 49 [Cal.1945]. In addition to this we cannot say there is any other evidence that [grantee] dominated his father or that his father placed any particular confidence, faith, or reliance upon [grantee] in the conduct of his affairs. We have held that a dominant position of a child will not be presumed from the relationship alone, In re King’s Estate, 49 Wyo. 453, 57 P.2d 675, 678 [1936].
Even though the transaction in this case was accomplished without appellant receiving monetary consideration, appellant fails, however, to satisfy the standard set forth in Zullig. Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, there was some confidential relationship by virtue of the family status between appellant and her sons, there is nothing provided within the adequate and un-contradicted evidence to demonstrate conduct other than action by them fairly and in good faith.
The sons received the properties in this case. In their affidavits in support of their motion for summary judgment, both sons stated that appellant initiated the transfer, that she was not the least bit hesitant to make the transfer, and that she fully understood the implications and finality of transferring the properties to her sons. Zullig, 502 P.2d 198. Appellant, on the other hand, offers no assertion to the contrary in her own affidavit and fails to contradict her sons’ affidavits. She attributes the exercise of undue influence entirely to her husband, not her sons. None of the three elements of undue influence in Matter of Estate of Obra, 749 P.2d at 277, “(1) opportunity to control; (2) a condition permitting subversion; and (3) activity on the part of the person charged,” were shown by the evidence in this case to apply to either son who became a grantee from the common conveyance executed by the mother and the father. Although the sons received the properties, appellant does not .allege that they acted unfairly or in bad faith in order to procure the properties. Thus, the sons satisfy any analytical obligation to show fairness and good faith and, consequently, their behavior is not a genuine issue of material fact in this case. Maurer v. Ballou, 440 P.2d 126 (Wyo.1968). Appellant only argues that since her husband exercised undue influence within a confidential relationship, her sons should be required to show that their gain was secured fairly and in good faith. However, since appellant has failed to assert or show supportive evidence that appellant and her sons were engaged in a confidential relationship or that her sons in any way became involved in her decision to sign the deed, we do not impose that obligation on them as the grantees. Zullig, 502 P.2d 198. Cf. Baldwin, 346 P.2d 278.
One course of action which appellant might have chosen in this case would have been to posture her case in contention that her husband and sons somehow acted “in concert” to acquire her ownership interest in the two properties. It appears that the possibility of “in concert” behavior might at least have been a colorable issue sufficient, in itself, to overcome the confidential relationship barrier. Appellant, however, failed to raise the issue of whether or not her husband and sons acted “in concert.” In fact, even after appellees raised the possibility of “in concert” actions in their brief to this court on appeal,8 appellant failed to respond or appreciate the potential significance of the argument. From the evidence in the record, it appears appellant’s hope for recovery in this case hinged on a showing of a conspiratorial “in concert” activity among the appellees sufficient to justify application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment and subsequent application of a constructive trust remedy.
*837The validity of a gift deed is not in question. May v. McCormick By and Through Swallow, 704 P.2d 709 (Wyo.1985); York v. James, 62 Wyo. 184, 209, 165 P.2d 109 (1946). Furthermore, we have clearly and decisively stated that a family relationship by itself is not a suspicious circumstance for consideration of undue influence. Skinner v. Skinner, 601 P.2d 543 (Wyo.1979); Brug, 600 P.2d 710.
Appellant’s argument on appeal fails to convince this court of the existence of a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to overcome appellees’ motion for summary judgment. Each claim upon which appellant brings her appeal is missing a significant and necessary element. First, appellant claims that her husband exercised undue influence in convincing her to transfer ownership of the properties to their sons. While appellant’s husband may well have urged her compliance in the transaction, the fact that he too transferred his ownership interest in the same properties provides evidence that he did not take advantage nor benefit at his wife’s expense. Appellant offered no evidence in contravention.
Second, appellant frames her argument in the context of a confidential relationship existing between herself and her husband. Zullig, 502 P.2d 198. She fails, however, to include her sons in the allegation. Thus, regardless of her husband’s alleged wrongful influence, appellant fails to offer any evidence by which to overcome the legal principle that “a deed is good without consideration in the absence of some wrongful act on the part of the grantee, such as fraud or undue influence.” Maurer, 440 P.2d at 128 (emphasis added). See Strom v. Felton, 76 Wyo. 370, 302 P.2d 917 (1956).
Finally, although the sons apparently did benefit by the gift obtained by appellant’s conveyance of a co-ownership interest upon her husband’s recommendations, appellant failed to premise any cause of action on unjust enrichment resulting from appel-lees’ common plan or conspiratorial action. We will not create a cause of action for appellant that she must raise herself.9 Since appellant offered no evidence of her sons’ undue influence and since she failed to challenge the transaction on the basis of unjust enrichment, this court will not fashion a remedy to rescind the conveyance. Strom, 302 P.2d 917.
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees in this case. Appellant, in resisting the motion for summary judgment, fails to present specific facts to demonstrate existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Nelson, 777 P.2d 73. As the case was pleaded, actual facts were not really controverted. Thus, appel-lees satisfy the requirement for affirmation of a motion for summary judgment brought by a defendant. Cordova, 719 P.2d 625. We find no credibility questions to be resolved by trial. Davenport, 744 P.2d at 1114.
The summary judgment entered in favor of appellees, the father as grantor and the sons as grantees, is affirmed.
THOMAS and CARDINE, JJ„ file dissenting opinions.
. We will refer to appellee Thomas Walsh as husband. The record reveals that a divorce action was filed in a separate proceeding, but not whether a decree had been granted. Before divorce, the real estate was held by the husband and wife in an estate by the entireties. Amick v. Elwood, 11 Wyo. 269, 314 P.2d 944 (1957); Peters v. Dona, 49 Wyo. 306, 54 P.2d 817 (1936). After divorce, the interest would be changed. Choman v. Epperley, 592 P.2d 714 (Wyo.1979). The difference under Wyoming law is that neither party had a separately conveyable interest before divorce, Colorado Nat. Bank v. Miles, 711 P.2d 390 (Wyo.1985); Ward Terry & Co. v. Hensen, 75 Wyo. 444, 297 P.2d 213 (1956); after divorce, the fifty percent interest of each, equally recognized in the decree, would be conveyable by either party, Witzel v. Witzel, 386 P.2d 103 (Wyo.1963), since the estate by the entirety lasts only through marriage. Wambeke v. Hopkin, 372 P.2d 470 (Wyo.1962). Cf. Hundley v. Neely, 365 P.2d 196 (Wyo.1961). We do not know whether the wife was seeking a one hundred percent title interest through the divorce division or only a fifty percent interest by virtue of her previous co-ownership.
Realistically, unless some sort of conspiracy had been pled, which it was not, we fail to find how the husband became a real party in interest as a litigable participant. He made no claim for return of the properties and had no ownership to reconvey. This was a mother versus children lawsuit based upon the husband’s alleged conduct in persuading "the mother as co-owner to sign a conveyance resulting in the transfer of the parents’ interests in the real estate as a gift to the parties’ children.” Actually, as is later recognized herein, the transaction was conceived in an effort to make the properties unavailable for potential claims by creditors.
. In addition to affidavits submitted by all parties, the realtor, who facilitated the 1987 transfer of title for the two properties, also submitted an affidavit in support of appellees' position. Not only is the record sketchy in factual detail as a case submitted to the district court by cross-motion for summary judgment, but the hearing on the motion itself was not reported. Appellant describes the record as "patently underdeveloped with no depositions from either side.” In appellant’s briefing, the attack centers on the confidentiality relationship between husband and wife, while appellees contend, as a disparate issue, that it does not matter since the grantees took by conveyance from both and were uninvolved in influencing the property transfer.
. Appellees’ brief contains few page references to the record. Appellant’s brief contains more references, but they are not especially specific or completely helpful. Appellant also failed to attach the mandatory appendix pursuant to W.R.A.P. 7.01(j) (formerly 5.01(5)(a)).
. It appears from the record and both sides acknowledge that the intended purpose of the property transfer would have been frustrated. See Wyoming’s version of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, W.S. §§ 34-14-101 through 34-14-113 (1990).
. The record does not indicate that appellant filed a brief in the district court in support of her motion for summary judgment.
. Modified and expanded without changing the principle in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, *835§ 177 (1981).
. Appellant stated in her affidavit in support of her motion for summary judgment: -
9. After your Affiant had signed the Warranty [sic] Deed conveying both pieces of property to Defendants Thomas Walsh, Jr., and Kenneth Walsh, Defendant Thomas L. Walsh, Jr., told your Affiant “Mom, you do not have anything to worry about and we (meaning Plaintiff and Defendant Thomas Walsh [Sr.]) will get it (meaning both pieces of property) back as soon as the apartment house issue was over.”
(Emphasis added.) Appellant also stated in the same affidavit that:
10. In September of 1989, the same Defendant Thomas Walsh, Jr., also living at 292 South Third Avenue, physically assaulted your Affiant, causing your Affiant to flee from that home, and your Affiant has not been able to reside in said home since that time.
. There is no allegation in this case, and there is not a scintilla of evidence that the Grantees, Thomas Walsh, Jr. and Kenneth Edward Walsh, or either of them, either individually or in concert with Appellee, Thomas Walsh [Sr.], their father, was guilty of any wrongdoing, fraud or misconduct of any kind which induced the Appellant to convey the property to them.
(Emphasis added.)
. In the complaint, prayer for recovery of the joint interest in the properties was based on undue influence of the husband in "caus[ing] [wife] and [husband] to convey * * * to the parties’ sons * * *.” In pretrial conference memorandum it is stated: "The only issue in this case is whether there was sufficient consideration for the transfer of Plaintiff’s and her husband's property to Defendants Thomas Walsh, Jr., and Kenneth Edward Walsh.”
The prayer of the complaint is a curiosity since it seeks reconveyance not only to plaintiff, the mother, but also to defendant, the father, who does not seek that relief:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the court enter its decree reconveying the subject real property described above to Plaintiff and Defendant Thomas Walsh as tenants by the en-tireties * * *.
The record reveals that a divorce proceeding was pending in February 1990, but does not inform whether a decree was later granted. Obviously, if the parties are now divorced, a recreated estate by the entireties is not possible. Amick v. Elwood, 77 Wyo. 269, 314 P.2d 944 (1957); Ward Terry & Co. v. Hensen, 75 Wyo. 444, 297 P.2d 213 (1956).