IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN SECTION AT NASHVILLE
______________________________________________
NOBLE NEAL KNIGHT, a non compos
FILED
mentis next friend and guardian, July 17, 1998
FRED KNIGHT,
Cecil W. Crowson
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Appellate Court Clerk
Marion Chancery No. 4712
Vs. C.A. No. 01A01-9711-CH-00643
JAMES LANCASTER, Defendant
and MADGE BOGGILD,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________________________________________________________
FROM THE MARION COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
THE HONORBLE L. F. STEWART, CHANCELLOR
Charles R. Ables of South Pittsburg
For Juanita Knight, Successor to Fred Knight
Timothy R. Simonds;
McKoon, Billings & Gold, P.C. of Chattanooga
For Appellant, Madge Boggild
Jerry B. Bible of Jasper
For Guardian Ad Litem
REVERSED IN PART, MODIFIED IN PART AND REMANDED
Opinion filed:
W. FRANK CRAWFORD,
PRESIDING JUDGE, W.S.
CONCUR:
DAVID R. FARMER, JUDGE
HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, JUDGE
This case involves a family dispute over the ownership of several bank and trust
accounts. Plaintiff/Appellee Noble Neal Knight (Brother) and Defendant/Appellant Madge
Boggild (Sister) are the brother and sister of Burma Lewis (Decedent), now deceased. After
completing the third grade in his teens, Brother held various jobs throughout his life; most
notably he was involved in a farming partnership with his brother, Sam Knight. When Sam
Knight died in 1972, the assets of the farming partnership were divided equally between Brother
and Sam Knight’s estate. Following Sam Knight’s death, Brother, who was in his early sixties,
decided to move in with Decedent at her residence in Marion County. When the Knight family
farm was sold the following year, all of the Knight siblings, including the parties, each received
$10,335.56 as their share of the proceeds.
Brother continued to live with Decedent until her death in 1981. Apparently, Brother’s
only sources of income at this time were payments from Social Security and paychecks from
occasional jobs. At the time of her death, Decedent retained several bank and trust accounts at
various lending institutions in Chattanooga. A detailed listing of the status of these accounts at
the time of Decedent’s death is attached to this Opinion as an Appendix. One of these bank
accounts and three of these trust accounts are at issue in this appeal.
The three trust accounts at issue were originally opened in 1975 by Decedent as separate
joint tenancy accounts, each listing Decedent or Brother as owners. Decedent closed these
account in 1980 and transferred the funds to three new corresponding 21-year discretionary
revocable trust accounts, each listing Decedent as trustee for Brother and/or Sister. These trust
accounts were worth approximately $7,900, $6,600, and $18,000 at the time of Decedent’s death.
The bank account at issue was originally opened in 1976 as a joint tenancy account,
listing Decedent and Brother as owners.1 In 1980 Decedent closed this account and transferred
the funds to a new discretionary revocable trust account, listing Decedent as trustee for Brother
or Henry Knight. Approximately three weeks before her death, Decedent closed this account and
replaced it with a joint tenancy account, listing Decedent and Sister as owners. At the time of
Decedent’s death, this bank account had a balance of approximately $16,675.
After Decedent’s death, Defendant James Lancaster2, the successor trustee for the
relevant trust accounts, managed these accounts. Lancaster withdrew the funds from each of the
trust accounts and ultimately set up three corresponding new accounts listing himself as trustee
1
Another sibling, Henry H. Knight, Sr., was subsequently added as a joint tenant in
1979.
2
Lancaster is not a party to this appeal.
2
for Brother or Sister. With regard to the bank account, Sister drafted a letter to Lancaster,
authorizing him to “change this account and set it up any way that he sees fit.” Consequently,
Lancaster withdrew the funds from the bank account and set up an account listing him as trustee
for Brother. Lancaster subsequently closed this account and established a series of accounts
listing Brother and Lancaster as co-owners. Ultimately these were transferred by Lancaster in
1982 to a bank account listing Sister as sole owner.
Shortly after Decedent’s death, Brother moved to Alabama to live with his brother, Next
Friend and Guardian Fred Knight, and sister-in-law, Juanita Knight. In 1982 an Alabama court
appointed Fred Knight as legal guardian of Brother, who was 73 years old at that time. Later that
year, Fred Knight, on behalf of Brother, filed this suit, alleging that the accounts at issue were
invalid since some or all of the funds in the accounts were the personal property of Brother.
After it was discovered that Fred Knight was himself adjudicated mentally incompetent by a
Tennessee court in 1972,3 Juanita Knight replaced her husband as primary plaintiff in this suit.
Other family members were subsequently added as plaintiffs to this suit, and a Guardian ad litem
was appointed to represent Brother.
Three and one half years after the case was tried, the trial court in 1989 entered an order
in which it found that Decedent “took over” the finances of Brother, who the court reasoned was
mentally incompetent to manage his financial affairs and, thus, did not have the requisite
capacity to consent to the creation of the accounts established by Decedent. As a result, the trial
court held that the bank account was the sole property of Brother and that the trust accounts were
partially invalid since $18,632.70 of the funds in the trust accounts plus accrued interest was
Brother’s personal property. After the trial court denied a Motion for New Trial and Motion to
Alter or Amend the Judgment filed by Sister, Sister timely filed a Notice of Appeal, but the
Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because the trial court had not entered a final judgment.
The judgment was not made final until 1997, at which time Sister renewed her Notice of Appeal.
Sister presents five issues for review, as stated in her brief:
1. Whether the trial court erred in holding that $18,632.70 (plus
accrued interest) of the funds contained in the trust accounts at
issue in the litigation were the property of Noble Neal Knight.
3
Consequently, Juanita Knight was appointed conservator of his estate.
3
2. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the funds
contained in Bank Account No. 8-16-80177 (the successor
account of Account No. 8-9-1216) were the property of Noble
Neal Knight and not the property of Madge Boggild.
3. Whether the trial court erred in holding that Noble Neal
Knight did not have the requisite mental capacity to consent to
the creation of the trust accounts and other bank transactions at
issue in this litigation.
4. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the trust accounts
at issue in the litigation (which name Noble Neal Knight,
Appellant and others as co-beneficiaries) were partially invalid as
a matter of law.
5. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for new
trial and motion to alter or amend the judgment filed by Appellant
in this action.
Because of their interrelation, the issues will be considered together.
Since this case was tried by the trial court sitting without a jury, we review the case de
novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact by the trial court.
Unless the evidence preponderates against the findings, we must affirm, absent error of law.
T.R.A.P. 13(d).
T h e s ig n a t u r e c a r d s in t h e r e c o r d d e m o n s t r a te t h a t B r o t h e r i n i t i a l l y h e l d a n i n t e r e s t i n a l l o f t h e a c c o u n t s a t i s s u e
a s a j o i n t t e n a n t w i t h t h e r i g h t o f s u r v i v o r s h i p . See Lowry v. Lowry, 5 4 1 S . W . 2 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 2 ( T e n n . 1 9 7 6 ) . I n
Leffew v. Mayes, 6 8 5 S . W . 2 d 2 8 8 ( T e n n . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) , t h e C o u r t s t a t e d :
W h e r e f u n d s a r e o n d e p o s i t i n a j o i n t a c c o u n t w i t h r i g h t o f s u r v i v o r s h ip , w e
h o l d t h a t d u r i n g t h e l i f e ti m e o f t h e j o i n t t e n a n t s a r e b u t ta b l e p r e s u m p t i o n a r i s e s
t h a t t h e p a r t i e s o w n t h e m o n e y o n d e p o s i t e q u a l l y . Kinkenon v. Hue, 2 0 7
N e b . 6 9 8 , 3 0 1 N . W . 2 d 7 7 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ; Craig v. Curtiss, 6 4 O h i o A p p . 2 d 7 2 , 4 1 1
N . E . 2 d 1 9 7 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; Phillips v. Phillips, 7 0 A . D . 2 d 3 0 , 4 1 9 N . Y . S . 2 d 5 7 3
( 1 9 7 9 ) ; McAulliffe v. Wilson, 4 1 N . C . A p p . 1 1 7 , 2 5 4 S . E . 2 d 5 4 7 ( 1 9 7 9 ) .
A s a c o n se q u e n c e , u p o n a s u it b y o n e j o in t te n a n t a g a in s t th e o t h e r, th e p a r tie s
m a y p r o v e t h e o w n e r s h i p o f t h e f u n d s t h a t w e n t i n t o t h e a c c o u n t . Craig v.
Curtiss, supra.
E v e n t h o u g h a jo i n t t e n a n t m a y w i t h d r a w t h e e n ti r e f u n d , o n e w h o d o e s
w i th d r a w f u n d s in e x c e s s o f h i s m o i e t y i s li a b l e t o t h e o t h e r j o i n t t e n a n t f o r t h e
e x c e s s s o w i t h d r a w n . Bricker v. Krimer, 1 3 N . Y . 2 d 2 2 , 2 4 1 N . Y . S . 2 d 4 1 3 ,
1 9 1 N . E . 2 d 7 9 5 ( 1 9 6 3 ) ; Austin v. Summers, 2 3 7 S . C . 6 1 3 , 1 1 8 S . E . 2 d 6 8 4
( 1 9 6 1 ) ; Fecteau v. Cleveland Trust Co., 1 7 1 O h i o S t . 1 2 1 , 1 6 7 N . E . 2 d
8 9 0 ( 1 9 6 0 ) . A c o n tr a c tu a l a g r e e m e n t b e tw e e n th e b a n k a n d t h e j o i n t d e p o s i t o r s
d o e s n o t c o n c l u s iv e l y d e t e rm i n e t h e r ig h t s b e t w e e n t h e d e p o s it o r s d u r in g t h e ir
l i f e t i m e . Johnson v. Herrin, 2 7 2 S . C . 2 2 4 , 2 5 0 S . E . 2 d 3 3 4 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ;
O'Hair v. O'Hair, 1 0 9 A r i z . 2 3 6 , 5 0 8 P . 2 d 6 6 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ; In re Webb's
Estate, 1 8 O h i o A p p . 2 d 2 8 7 , 2 4 9 N . E . 2 d 8 3 ( 1 9 6 9 ) .
W e fu r th e r h o ld th a t T . C .A ., § 4 5 - 2 - 7 0 3 , w h ic h a b so lv e s a b a n k o f lia b ility
u p o n i t s p a y m e n t t o e i t h e r jo i n t t e n a n t o r t h e s u r v i v o r , w a s e n a c t e d f o r t h e
p r o t e c ti o n o f t h e b a n k a n d d o e s n o t a f fe c t t h e r ig h t s o f th e j o i n t t e n a n t s , a s
4
b e t w e e n t h e m s e l v e s , d u r i n g t h e i r l i f e t i m e . Keokuk Sav. Bank & Trust
Co. v. Desvaux, 2 5 9 I o w a 3 8 7 , 1 4 3 N . W . 2 d 2 9 6 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ; Armstrong v.
Daniel, 8 8 I l l . A p p . 2 d 3 1 , 2 3 2 N . E . 2 d 2 1 8 ( 1 9 6 7 ) .
B a se d u p o n th e fo r e g o in g a u th o r itie s , w e h o ld th a t d u rin g th e life tim e o f jo in t
te n a n t s ( o th e r th a n h u s b a n d a n d w i f e ) w i t h r i g h t o f s u r v i v o r s h ip , t h e f u n d s
d e p o s it e d i n s u c h a n a c c o u n t a r e h e l d i n d i v is ib l e p a r ts a n d , u p o n t h e d e a t h o f o n e ,
th e o th e r ta k e s th e w h o l e o n l y b y s u r v i v o r s h ip .
Leffew, 6 8 5 S . W . 2 d a t 2 9 1 .
I n t h e i n s ta n t c a s e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g t h a t $ 1 8 , 6 3 2 ( p l u s a c c r u e d i n t e r e s t ) o f t h e f u n d s in t h e t r u s t a c c o u n t s
b e lo n g to B r o th e r im p lie s th a t B r o th e r s u c c e ss fu lly r e b u tte d th e p re s u m p tio n th a t th e jo in t te n a n c y a c c o u n ts w e r e o w n e d
e q u a l l y b y t h e j o i n t t e n a n t s . The record demonstrates that, with the exception of Social Security
payments and various unspecified paychecks, Brother’s assets were primarily derived from the
following: (1) $4,009.72 as his share of his and Sam Knight’s farming partnership bank account
after Sam Knight died in 1972; (2) $913.40 as a portion of the proceeds from the sale of
equipment and other assets of the farming partnership; (3) $2,733.36 as his share of proceeds of
cattle sold by the partnership; (4) $640.72 as his one-ninth interest in Sam Knight’s estate
following his death; and (5) $10,335.56 as his share of the proceeds when the Knight family farm
was sold in 1973.4 These sums total $18,632.76. The trial court found that Decedent “took over
all of Neal Knight’s money” once he moved in with her. The trial court proceeded to charge the
Decedent with this sum, $18,632.76, plus interest, and rule that the sum shall be deducted from
all of her trust accounts and that the 21-year trusts are null and void with regard to Brother’s
funds. The trial court neglected to specify the exact amounts which should be deducted from
each account.
Although there is evidence that suggests that Decedent handled Brother’s financial
affairs, the trial court’s ruling with regard to the trust accounts is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. At trial, the plaintiff failed to show that any of Brother’s
personal funds are directly traceable to any of the accounts at issue in this appeal. Terry W.
Gentle, a certified public accountant, testified at trial based on his preparation of a “Summary
of Transactions and Signature Cards at Financial Institutions Involving Noble Neal Knight from
1972 through April 4, 1985.” Gentle testified that the report was compiled without knowledge
of the sources of the deposits into any of the accounts. There is absolutely no evidence, such as
4
Each of the Knight siblings received this sum after the farm was sold.
5
deposit slips or canceled checks, that reveal Brother’s funds being deposited into any of the
accounts at issue.
Instead, the plaintiff presented circumstantial evidence in an attempt to link the
aforementioned sums of money received from Brother with the accounts. For instance, First
Federal Trust Account No. C-45764 (See Appendix), which existed at the time of Decedent’s
death, was originally a bank account opened in 1972 as a joint tenancy account owned by
Brother and Hugh Knight with an initial deposit of $4,009.07. Indeed there is a correlation
between this initial deposit and Brother’s receipt of $4,009.72 as his share of the farming
partnership account. Sister, however, does not claim an interest in this account on appeal. The
trial court also noted that the predecessor to Interfederal Trust Account No. 215795-10 was
opened in 1977 with an initial deposit of $10,355.56. Certainly, there is a correlation between
this sum and Brother’s receipt of $10,355.56 as his share of the proceeds from the sale of the
Knight family farm. This deposit, however, was made more than three years after Brother
received his share of the proceeds, and it is undisputed that Decedent also received the identical
sum as her share of the proceeds. Thus, it is conceivable that this deposit could reflect
Decedent’s share of the proceeds from the family farm. Nevertheless, Sister, on appeal, does not
challenge the application of the trial court’s order to this account.
These two deposits are the only evidence in the record that conceivably link Brother’s
funds to any of the accounts. The record also includes a copy of the $640.72 endorsed check
made out to Brother from Sam Knight’s estate. A stamp on the back of the check indicates that
the check was deposited with Chattanooga Federal Savings & Loan Association, predecessor to
Interfederal Savings & Loan, in 1974. The account into which the check was deposited is not
discernible, and there is no evidence that clearly demonstrates that these funds were eventually
deposited into any of the trust accounts at issue. In fact, Gentle’s report indicates that in the
period that Brother would have accumulated the aforementioned sums of money, 1972 thru
1974, the only account that existed was a First Federal Savings & Loan account,5 an account that
is not at issue in this appeal. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the trial court’s holding
presupposes that Brother did not spend any of the $18,632.76 during the ten years that he lived
5
See Account No. C-45764 in the Appendix for a history of this account.
6
with Decedent.
W i t h o u t e x p la in in g i t s re a s o n i n g , t h e tr i a l c o u r t a ls o h e l d t h a t t h e b a n k a c c o u n t a t i s s u e w a s B r o th e r ’s
p r o p e r t y . 6 T h e l a w a n d t h e f a c ts d o n o t s u p p o r t s u c h a f i n d i n g . T h e b a n k a c c o u n t w a s o r i g i n a l ly o p e n e d i n 1 9 7 6 a s a
j o i n t t e n a n c y a c c o u n t o w n e d b y D e c e d e n t , B r o t h e r , a n d H e n r y H . K n i g h t , S r ., w i t h a n i n i t i a l d e p o s i t o f $ 1 , 5 1 7 . 2 7 . T h e r e
i s n o e v i d e n c e t h a t a n y f u n d s d e p o s i t e d i n t o t h i s a c c o u n t o r t o a n y o f th e s u c c e s s o r s t o t h i s a c c o u n t a r e t r a c e a b l e t o
b r o t h e r .7
N o t w i t h s ta n d i n g t h i s la c k o f e v i d e n c e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g m a y , n e v e r t h e l e s s , b e u p h e l d , a t l e a s t i n p a r t , i f
t h e r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a t e s t h a t D e c e d e n t w i t h d r e w f u n d s f r o m t h e j o i n t t e n a n c y a c c o u n t s in e x c e s s o f h e r m o i e t y .
Leffew, 6 8 5 S . W . 2 d a t 2 9 1 . S i n c e t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t r a c i n g t h e s o u r c e o f t h e d e p o s i t s i n t o t h e a c c o u n t s
a t i s s u e , w e p r e s u m e t h a t e a c h j o i n t t e n a n t h e l d a n i n t e r e s t i n t h e a c c o u n t s i n e q u a l p r o p o r t i o n . Id. I n Estate of
Haynes v. Braden, 8 3 5 S . W . 2 d 1 9 ( T e n n . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) , t h e C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d w h e t h e r a j o i n t t e n a n c y a c c o u n t
c o n t r a c t e s t a b l i s h e d t h e i n t e n t t o c o n f e r c o m p l e t e c o n tr o l o f f u n d s o f t h e a c c o u n t t o t h e o t h e r j o i n t t e n a n t . I n th a t c a s e ,
H a y n e s e s ta b l i s h e d t w o j o i n t t e n a n c y b a n k a c c o u n t s w i th r i g h t o f s u r v i v o r s h ip w i t h h i s n e p h e w - d e f e n d a n t. S h o r t l y
b e f o r e H a y n e s ’ s d e a t h , h i s n e p h e w w i t h d r e w a l l t h e f u n d s . A f te r H a y n e s ’ d e a t h s u i t w a s f i l e d o n b e h a l f o f h i s e s t a t e
t o r e c o v e r th e f u n d s . T h e s i g n a t o r y c a r d s f o r th e c o n t r a c t s a t i s s u e i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g l a n g u a g e :
It is agreed by the signatory parties with each other a n d b y t h e
p a r t i e s w i t h y o u that any funds placed in or added to the account by
any one of the parties are and shall be conclusively intended to
be a gift and delivery at that time of such funds to the other
signatory party or parties to the extent of his or their pro rata
interest in the account. ( E m p h a s i s a d d e d ) .
Id. a t 2 0 - 2 1 . C o n t r a s t i n g t h e c a s e f r o m Leffew, supra, t h e C o u r t f o u n d f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d h e l d t h a t :
[ c ] l e a r l y t h e c o n tr a c t b e tw e e n th e p a r t i e s w h i c h w a s c r e a te d b y th e a c c o u n t
a g re e m e n t a u th o r iz e d a n d e m p o w e r ed th e d e f e n d a n t to w ith d r a w th e f u n d s a t a n y
t i m e a n d “ c o n c lu s iv e l y ” e s t a b l i s h e d a g i f t t o g e t h e r w i t h d e l i v e r y .
Id. a t 2 1 ; see also In re Hawn v. Melton, N o . 0 3 A 0 1 - 9 3 0 8 - C H - 0 0 2 8 5 , 1 9 9 3 W L 5 1 6 2 4 5 ( T e n n . A p p . D e c . 1 5 ,
1 9 9 3 ).
6
Brother’s brief suggests that this ruling was based on “fairness and equity under the
totality of [the] circumstances.”
7
In his brief, Brother argues that the trial court’s finding with regard to the bank
account can be justified by the theory of constructive trust. A party that neglects to raise an
issue before the trial court is barred from raising the issue for the first time on appeal.
Simpson v. Frontier Community Credit Union, 810 S.W.2d 147, 153 (Tenn. 1991); Stewart
Title Guar. Co. v. F.D.I.C., 936 S.W.2d 266, 270 (Tenn. App. 1996). This principle applies
to claims of constructive trusts. Holt v. Lovelace, Jefferson Chancery No. 45, 1986 WL
7610, at *1 (Tenn. App. July 9, 1986). Since Brother did not argue this issue before the trial
court, he may not raise the issue on appeal.
7
I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e j o i n t t e n a n c y c o n t r a c t s f o r t h e a c c o u n t s a t i s s u e c o n t a i n t h e i d e n t ic a l l a n g u a g e t h a t w a s
p r e s e n t i n Braden. T h e r e f o r e , D e c e d e n t w a s s e e m i n g l y a u t h o r i z e d t o u n i l a t e r a l l y w i t h d r a w a l l o f t h e f u n d s i n t h e j o i n t
te n a n c y a c c o u n t s a n d c r e a t e n e w a c c o u n t s . W ith r e g a rd to th e b a n k a c c o u n t a t is su e , F i r s t F e d e ra l A c c o u n t N o . 8 - 9 -
1 2 1 6 , i t w o u l d a p p e a r t h a t D e c e d e n t r e ta in e d th e r i g h t t o u n i l a t e r a l l y c lo s e th e p r e d e c e s s o r t r u s t a c c o u n t t h a t l i s te d
D e c e d e n t a s t r u s t e e f o r B r o t h e r o r H e n r y H . K n i g h t , S r .. T h e D i s c r e t i o n a r y R e v o c a b l e T r u s t A g r e e m e n t f o r t h i s a c c o u n t
e x p r e s s l y s t a t e s t h a t “ [ t] h e u n d e r s ig n e d g r a n t o r [ D e c e d e n t ] r e s e r v e s t h e r i g h t to r e v o k e s a i d t r u s t i n p a r t o r i n f u l l a t a n y
t i m e . . . . ” C o n s e q u e n tl y , D e c e d e n t d i d n o t b r e a c h th e c o n tr a c t o r a c t u n l a w f u l l y b y t e r m i n a ti n g t h e tr u s t o n M a y 7 ,
1 9 8 1 , a n d t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e f u n d s t o a j o i n t t e n a n c y a c c o u n t l i s t i n g D e c e d e n t a n d S i s t e r a s o w n e r s . See Leader Fed.
Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Hamilton, 4 6 T e n n . A p p . 3 6 8 , 3 8 2 - 8 3 , 3 3 0 S . W . 2 d 3 3 , 4 0 - 4 1 ( 1 9 5 9 ) . T h e s i g n a t u r e c a r d
f o r t h e s u c c e e d i n g j o i n t t e n a n c y a c c o u n t e x p r e s s ly g r a n t e d S i s te r t h e r i g h t o f s u r v i v o r s h ip . T h e r e f o r e , S i s te r w a s t h e
s o l e o w n e r o f t h e f u n d s i n t h e a c c o u n t f o l l o w i n g D e c e d e n t ’ s d e a t h a n d w a s f r e e t o u s e t h e f u n d s a s s h e s a w f i t . Lowry
v. Lowry, 5 4 1 S . W . 2 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 2 ( T e n n . 1 9 7 6 ) .
H o w e v e r , c a s e la w i n d i c a te s th a t S i s t e r ’s a c ti o n s c l o s i n g t h e jo i n t t e n a n c y a c c o u n t s w o u l d n o t b e a u t h o r i z e d
i n t h e e v e n t t h a t B r o t h e r d i d n o t h a v e t h e r e q u i s i t e m e n t a l c a p a c i t y . See Lowry, 5 4 1 S . W . 2 d a t 1 3 3 ; Braden, 8 3 5
S . W . 2 d a t 2 1 ; 1 0 A m . J u r . 2 d Banks & Financial Institutions § 6 7 8 ( 1 9 9 7 ) ; A n n o t a t i o n , Effect of
Incompetency of Joint Depositor upon Status and Ownership of Bank Account, 6 2 A . L . R . 2 d 1 0 9 1
( 1 9 5 8 ) . I n i t s M e m o r a n d u m O p i n i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t h a t B r o t h e r w a s “ i n c a p a b l e o f h a n d l i n g h i s o w n a f f a i r s ,” a n d
s ta te d :
F a c t u a l l y N o b l e N e a l K n i g h t h a d a d if f i c u lt t i m e in s c h o o l . H e n e v e r l e a r n e d to
r e a d o r w r i t e , e x c e p t t o s ig n h i s n a m e , n o r d i d h e e v e r le a r n a n y m a t h e m a t i c s . H e
s a y s h e c an ’t m a k e ch a n g e an d h a s h a d to d e p e n d u p o n so m e m e m b e r o f th e
fa m ily to h e lp h im a ll h is lif e . H e c a n ’ t d ia l a p h o n e . H e h a d w o r k e d fo r T . V .A .
a s a la b o r e r. H e d id h a v e a jo b a s a n i g h t w a tc h m a n a t a c o a l m in e b u t lo st it a fte r
a s h o rt tim e . H e d o e s a n d h a s d r a w n a m o n th ly c h e c k f o r s e v e ra l y e a rs . H e s a y s
h e h a d d i f f i c u l ty r e m e m b e r i n g t h i n g s . H e d i d l e a r n t o d r i v e a t r u c k t h o u g h o t h e r
w itn e s s e s f e lt h e w a s a d a n g e r o u s d riv e r . T h e P sy c h ia tris t, D r. P h illip C u rtis
S o t to n g , e x a m in e d h im a n d fo u n d h im to b e r e ta rd e d w ith a p ro b a b le IQ o f a ro u n d
7 5 to 8 0 . H e a ls o h a s a d is o rd e r o f f u n c tio n a r y in te llig e n c e . I n o ld la y m e n te r m s
h e i s a m o r a n [ s i c ] , i .e . , h e m u s t h a v e s u p e r v i s i o n a t w h a t e v e r h e d o e s .
T h e r e f o r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s ta t e d :
A s to th e v a r io u s c a r d s sig n e d b y t h e T r u ste e s a n d th e p a r tie s it is a rg u e d th a t th e y
v e s t t i t l e s , e t c . b u t th e y c a n h a v e n o e f f e c t u p o n t h i s c a s e s i n c e t h e f u n d s w e r e
N e a l K n i g h t s [ s ic ] t o b e g i n w i t h a n d h e c o u l d n o t g i v e h i s c o n s e n t , b e i n g a n o n
c om pos.
A s sta te d e a rlie r, th e a sp e c t o f th e tria l c o u rt’ s f in d in g th a t B ro th e r o w n e d a ll o f th e fu n d s in th e a c c o u n ts a t is su e is
f la w e d . O u r n e x t in q u ir y c o n c e r n s w h e t h e r th e tr ia l c o u rt e rr e d in d e te rm in in g th a t B r o th e r c o u ld n o t g iv e h is c o n s e n t
8
t o D e c e d e n t ’ s a c ti o n s b e c a u s e h e w a s m e n t a l l y i n c a p a c i ta t e d .
T h e p a r t y a t t e m p t i n g t o i n v a l i d a t e a c o n t r a c t b a s e d o n t h e t h e o r y o f m e n t a l i n c a p a c i t y b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f
p r o o f . Williamson v. Upchurch, 7 6 8 S . W . 2 d 2 6 5 , 2 6 9 ( T e n n . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) . I n Roberts v. Roberts, 8 2 7
S .W .2 d 7 8 8 ( T e n n . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) , t h e C o u r t q u o t e d a p p r o v i n g l y th e f o l lo w i n g l a n g u a g e f r o m C .J .S .:
T h e t e s t o f m e n t a l c a p a c i t y t o c o n t r a c t i s w h e t h e r t h e p e r s o n in q u e s t i o n
p o s s e s s e s s u f f ic i e n t m i n d t o u n d e r s t a n d , in a r e a s o n a b l e m a n n e r , t h e n a t u r e ,
e x te n t, c h a r a c te r , a n d e f f e c t o f t h e a c t o r tr a n s a c t i o n i n w h i c h h e is e n g a g e d ; t h e
la w d o e s n o t g a u g e c o n t ra c tu a l c a p a c ity b y th e s ta n d a r d o f m e n ta l c a p a c ity
po ssesse d by reaso na bly p rud en t m en . Itis not ne ce ssary to sho w that a p erso n
w a s i n c o m p e t e n t to t r a n s a c t a n y k i n d o f b u s i n e s s , b u t to in v a lid a te h is c o n t ra c t it
i s s u f f ic i e n t t o s h o w t h a t h e w a s m e n t a l l y i n c o m p e t e n t t o d e a l w i t h t h e p a r t i c u l a r
c o n t ra c t in is su e , ...
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t o a v o i d a c o n tr a c t i t i s in s u f f i c i e n t t o s h o w m e r e l y th a t th e
p e rs o n w a s o f u n s o u n d m in d o r in s a n e w h e n it w a s m a d e , b u t it m u s t a ls o b e
s h o w n t h a t t h i s u n s o u n d n e s s o r i n s a n i t y w a s o f s u c h a c h a r a c te r t h a t h e had no
r e a s o n a b l e p e r c e p t io n o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e n a t u r e o r te r m s o f t h e c o n tr a ct.
T h e e x te n t o r d e g re e o f in te lle c t g e n e ra lly is n o t in is s u e , b u t m e r e ly t h e m e n ta l
c a p a c ity to k n o w th e n a t u re a n d t e rm s o f th e c o n tr a c t.
W h i l e th e m e n ta l i n c a p a c it y w h i c h w i l l r e n d e r o n e in c a p a b l e o f c o n tr a c ti n g
n e e d n o t b e s o g r e a t a s e n t i r e l y t o d e t h r o n e t h e r e a s o n , a n d i m b e c i l i ty o r w e a k n e s s
o f m in d to a d e g r e e d e s tr o y in g o n e 's c a p a c ity t o u n d e r s ta n d a n d p r o t e c t h is o w n
i n t e r e s t s w i l l a v o i d h i s c o n t r a c t, t h e r e m u s t, t o i n v a l i d a t e t h e c o n tr a c t, b e a t t h e
tim e th e r e o f s u c h im p a i rm e n t o f r e a s o n i n g p o w e r s a s t o m a k e t h e p e r s o n
i n c a p a b l e o f a c ti n g r a t i o n a l ly i n t h e t r a n s a c t i o n i n v o l v e d , o r s u c h m e n t a l
u n s o u n d n e s s a s o c c a s io n s a n i n a b i l i t y t o c o m p r e h e n d th e s u b j e c t o f th e c o n t r a c t
a n d i t s n a t u r e a n d p r o b a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e s , o r a s r e n d e r s th e i n d i v id u a l in c a p a b l e
o f u n d e r st a n d i n g a n d a c ti n g w i t h d i s c r e t i o n i n th e b u s in e s s a t h a n d ; a n d i t h a s
b e e n h e l d t h a t t o i n v a l i d a t e h i s c o n t r a c t t h e r e m u s t b e a n e n t i r e l o s s o f a p e r s o n 's
u n d e r s ta n d i n g a s r e s p e c ts s u c h t r a n s a c ti o n .
I n t h e f i n a l a n a ly s is , c o n t r a c tu a l c a p a c i t y i s a q u e s t i o n t o b e r e s o lv e d i n t h e
l ig h t o f t h e f a c t s o f e a c h c a s e a n d t h e s u r r o u n d i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s .
Roberts, 8 2 7 S . W . 2 d a t 7 9 1 - 9 2 ( q u o t i n g 1 7 C . J . S . Contracts § 1 3 3 ( 1 ) ( e ) ) .
T h e p r o o f d e m o n s t r a te s t h a t B r o t h e r s u p p o r t e d h i m s e l f w i t h v a r i o u s j o b s f o r o v e r f i f t y y e a r s . B r o t h e r h a d a
d r i v e r ’ s l i c e n s e a n d o w n e d a n d d ro v e h is o w n t ru c k .8 A l t h o u g h h e w a s c a p a b l e o f c o o k in g f o r h i m s e l f a n d w a s h i n g h i s
o w n c l o t h e s , B r o th e r a p p a r e n tl y o n l y p e r f o r m e d s u c h c h o r e s o n r a r e o c c a s io n s . T e s ti m o n y r e v e a ls th a t B r o th e r c o u ld
n o t r e a d o r w r i t e a n d h a d t r o u b l e d i a l i n g t h e t e l e p h o n e . A l t h o u g h B r o t h e r o f t e n c a r r i e d h i s o w n m o n e y a n d u n d e r s to o d
s i m p l e m a t h e m a t i c s w i th r e g a r d t o f i n a n c i a l tr a n s a c t io n s , 9 i t i s c l e a r t h a t h e e n t r u s t e d h i s f in a n c i a l a f f a i r s t o o t h e r s
t h r o u g h o u t h i s l if e . A t tr i a l , w h e n q u e s t io n e d b y t h e G u a r d i a n a d l it e m , B r o t h e r t e s t i f i e d a s f o l lo w s :
Q . L e t m e a s k y o u t h i s . D u r in g a n y l a s t y e a r s , w e l l , l e t ’ s j u s t s a y a ll o f y o u r li f e
h e r e , h a v e y o u e v e r ta k e n c a r e o f y o u r o w n b a n k a c c o u n t s ?
8
Family members, however, testified that Brother was a poor driver.
9
Brother was capable of making change only for very simple transactions.
9
A . N o , sir .
Q . D o y o u k n o w h o w a b a n k o p e r a te s ?
A . N o , sir .
Q . A s fa r a s th e c u s t o m e r s?
A . W e l l , a l l I k n o w i s y o u g o in t h e r e a n d i f y o u ’ v e g o t a c h e c k y o u c a n c a s h i t
if it’ s g o o d , if it a in ’ t th e y c h e c k y o u r a c c o u n t is a ll I c a n s a y . I ’v e h a d th a t
happen.
D r . P h i l l i p S o t t o n g , a p s y c h i a t r i s t, t e s t i f i e d i n a d e p o s i t i o n b a s e d o n a f i f t e e n to t w e n t y m i n u t e e x a m i n a t i o n o f
B r o th e r i n 1 9 8 2 . A l t h o u g h D r . S o t t o n g w a s u n c e r ta i n o f w h e t h e r B r o th e r ’ s m e n t a l c a p a c i t y d e t e r i o r a te d a s h e g o t o l d e r ,
h e o p i n e d t h a t B r o t h e r l i k e l y h a d a l i m i t e d i n t e l l i g e n c e h i s e n t i r e li f e . D r . S o t t o n g ’ s d e p o s it i o n i n c l u d e s t h e f o l l o w i n g
i n t e r c h a n g e b e t w e e n t h e p s y c h i a t r is t a n d c o u n s e l f o r B r o t h e r :
Q . T o w h a t e x t e n t , i n y o u r o p i n i o n , d o y o u t h i n k t h a t t h i s in d i v i d u a l c o u l d e n t e r
i n t o a n y t y p e o f a g r e e m e n t a n d h i m f u l l y c o m p r e h e n d o r u n d e r s ta n d i t ?
A . O n t h e b a s i s o f t h a t e x a m , i f it w a s a n a g r e e m e n t i n v o l v i n g m o n e y I d o u b t th a t
t h i s m a n c o u ld c o m p r e h e n d it .
Q . D o y o u h a v e a n o p in i o n , b a s e d o n y o u r o b s e r v a ti o n s o f t h i s m a n , a s to w h e r e
h e w o u l d b e c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y a s t o a n a v e r a g e c h i ld o r w h a t e v e r ?
A . I ’d g i v e h i m a r o u n d 8 o r 9 y e a r o ld c h i ld [ s i c ] .
Q . B a s e d a ls o o n y o u r o b s e r v a ti o n s a n d y o u r o p i n i o n t h a t h a v e b e e n a r r i v e d f r o m
t h a t , t o w h a t e x t e n t d o y o u t h i n k h e h a s t h e a b il i t y t o u n d e r s ta n d m a y b e th e
r a m i f i c a t i o n s o f s i g n i n g b a n k p a p e r s o r a n y t h i n g o f th a t n a t u r e w h i c h m i g h t
c h a n g e a c c o u n ts , b a n k c a r d s , o r a n y o f th a t ?
A . I t h i n k h i s ju d g m e n t i s b a s e d p u r e l y o n t r u s t a n d t h a t i f y o u s m i l e d a t h i m a n d
w e r e a n i c e g u y a n d h e tr u s te d y o u a n d h e l o o k s li k e t h e k i n d o f p e r s o n w h o
th i n k s b e s t o f h is f e llo w m a n , a n d if y o u w e re , I ’ d s a y y o u c o u ld b e th e w o r ld ’ s
g r e a t e s t c r o o k a n d if y o u w e r e n ic e h e ’ d p r o b a b ly tru st y o u a n d d o w h a te v e r y o u
s a id a n d s o I t h i n k t h e p r o b l e m t h e r e is h o w g o o d h i s j u d g m e n t i s a n d w h o m h e
t r u s t s . I d o n ’ t t h i n k h e h a s t h e c a p a c it y t o f o r m u l a te w h a t’ s re a ll y g o i n g o n i n
t e r m s o f w h a t d e c i s io n s a r e b e in g m a d e a l l a b o u t .
W h e n q u e s t i o n e d b y c o u n s e l f o r S i s te r , D r . S o t t o n g e l a b o r a t e d :
H e does not co m pre he nd nu m b e r s . T h e r e f o r e , th e m o s t I c a n s a y o n t h e b a s i s o f
m y e x a m in a tio n is th a t h e i s n o t c o m p e te n t t o e n te r i n t o a c o n tr a c t s o f a r a s
n um bers are c on ce rne d a nd t h a t is th e e x t e n t th a t I c a n s a y w h e t h e r h e ’ s
c o m p e te n t o r n o t c o m p e te n t b a s e d o n m y e x a m in a tio n .
A l t h o u g h D r . S o t t o n g d i d n o t c o n d u c t a f o rm a l I Q t e s t, h e e s ti m a t e d t h a t B r o th e r ’s I Q i s b e tw e e n 7 5 t o 8 0 b a s e d o n h is
e v a lu a ti o n .
S i s t e r c o n t e n d s t h a t D r . S o t t o n g ’ s e v a l u a t i o n d o e s n o t p r o v i d e m a t e r ia l e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g w h e t h e r B r o t h e r
r e ta i n e d t h e r e q u i s i t e m e n t a l c a p a c i t y t o e n t e r i n t o t h e s p e c i f ic t r a n s a c t i o n s a t i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e . S i s t e r a s s e r ts t h a t e v e n
10
i f B r o t h e r d o e s n o t a d e q u a t e l y c o m p r e h e n d n u m b e r s , h e m a y , n e v e r t h e l e s s , c o m p e t e n t l y u n d e r s ta n d t h e n o t i o n o f j o i n t
b a n k a c c o u n t s a n d , t h u s , b e a b l e t o c o n s e n t t o D e c e d e n t ’ s t r a n s a c t i o n s . 10 C i t i n g Woods v. Mutual of Omaha,
N o . 0 2 A 0 1 - 9 5 1 0 - C V - 0 0 2 1 8 , 1 9 9 6 W L 5 7 8 4 8 9 ( T e n n . A p p . O c t . 9 , 1 9 9 6 ) , S i s te r a r g u e s t h a t D r . S o t t o n g ’ s t e s t i m o n y
i s i r r e l e v a n t b e c a u s e i t o n l y r e n d e r s a n o p i n i o n o f B r o t h e r ’ s c a p a c i t y after t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s a t i s s u e o c c u r r e d .
I n Woods, t h e p l a i n t i f f c h a l l e n g e d t h e v a l i d i t y o f a s e t t l e m e n t r e l e a s e a g r e e m e n t e n t e r e d i n t o b e t w e e n t h e
p l a i n t if f a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t o n t h e b a s is o f t h e p l a in t i f f’ s a l l e g e d m e n t a l i n c a p a c it y . T h e p l a in t i f f p r o f f e r e d th e a ff i d a v it
o f a p s y c h o l o g i s t, w h o t e s t i f i e d :
[ P l a i n t i f f ] f i r s t c a m e t o m e o n A p r il 6 , 1 9 9 2 [ a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w o w e e k s a f t e r
t h e r e le a s e w a s e x e c u t e d ] p r e s e n t e d w i t h p a r a n o i a , p s y c h o t i c t h i n k i n g , n u m e r o u s
s o m a ti c c o m p l a in t s , a n d e x tr e m e a n x ie ty .
H e h a s r e c e iv e d a d i a g n o s is o f S c h i z o p h r e n ia , P a r a n o i d ty p e . . . .
I t i s m y o p i n i o n t h a t , d u e t o h i s m e n t a l s ta t e a t t h a t t i m e , h e w a s n o t c a p a b l e
o f e n t e r in g i n t o a c o n t r a c t w i t h f u l l k n o w l e d g e a n d a b i l i t y t o u n d e r s ta n d t h e
c o n s e q u e n c e s o f th a t c o n t r a c t .
Id. a t * 1 . G r a n t i n g s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e C o u r t f o u n d t h i s a f f i d a v i t t o b e “ i n a d e q u a t e , ” s i n c e i t
“ r e f e r s o n l y t o [ t h e p l a in t i f f ’ s ] g e n e r a l i n a b i li t y t o e n t e r i n t o a c o n t r a c t a n d d o e s n o t m a k e s p e c i f ic r e f e r e n c e t o t h e
c o n t r a c t a t i s s u e . ” Id. a t * 3 .
W e f i n d Woods t o b e i n a p p o s i t e t o t h e c a s e a t h a n d . I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , D r . S o t t o n g t e s t i f i e d a s f o l l o w s :
T h e p r o b l e m I w o u l d h a v e h e r e i n t e r m s o f t h i s m a n w o u l d b e y o u ’ ll s e e m a n y
p e o p l e f ro m 7 0 o n u p w h o w ill s h o w th e s a m e f a c to r w h o m a y h a v e b e e n
f o r m e r l y b r i g h t e r p e o p l e a n d w h e r e th e r e ’ s e n o u g h a r t e r io s c l e r o s i s t o c r e a te t h e
s a m e c o n d i t i o n , s o t h a t i n t h i s m a n I d o n ’ t k n o w e n o u g h a b o u t h i s e a r l i e r h i s to r y
t o k n o w w h e t h e r t h i s h a s b e e n a l i e [ s i c ] lo n g t h i n g o r w h e t h e r t h i s i s m e r e l y
s o m e th i n g t h a t h e h a s d e v e l o p e d i n a g e n o w . H i s c o n c e p t is th a t f o r 2 5 y e a r s h e
h a d n o t b e e n a b le to h a n d le m o n e y o r k n o w w h a t to d o w ith i t a n d t h e r e f o re m y
a s s u m p t io n is th a t th is is n o t a rte rio sc le ro sis , th a t th is is ra th e r ju st a lim ite d
i n t e l l i g e n c e t h a t h e f u n c t i o n s w i th .
S t a n d i n g a l o n e , D r . S o t t o n g ’ s d e p o s it i o n , i n d e e d , w o u l d a p p e a r t o b e i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e o f B r o t h e r ’ s m e n t a l c a p a c i t y
a t t h e t i m e o f th e t r a n s a c t i o n s a t i s s u e . H o w e v e r , w h e n c o u p l e d w i t h t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l , s u f f i c i e n t
e v i d e n c e e x i s t e d b y w h i c h t h e t r ia l c o u r t c o u l d m a k e a f i n d i n g t h a t B r o t h e r d i d n o t h a v e t h e r e q u i s i t e c a p a c i t y a t t h e t i m e
t h e tr a n s a c ti o n s w e r e e x e c u t e d .
F a c e d w i t h f a c t u a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s s i m i l a r t o t h e c a s e a t h a n d , t h e C o u r t i n Roberts, supra, s t a t e d :
E v e n w h e n n o o p p o s i n g e x p e r t t e s ti m o n y i s o f f e re d , t h e t r ie r o f f a c t i s s t i l l
b o u n d t o d e c i d e t h e i s s u e u p o n i ts o w n f a ir ju d g m e n t a s s i s t e d b y e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y .
Gibson v. Ferguson, T e n n . 1 9 7 6 , 5 6 2 S . W . 2 d 1 8 8 .
10
Sister’s also stresses that Dr. Sottong’s opinion was based on a single evaluation of
Brother that lasted for only 15 to 20 minutes.
11
E v e n t h o u g h t h e f in d i n g o f t h e T r i a l C o u r t d o e s n o t e x p l i c i t l y s ta t e t h a t t h e
d e c e a s e d w a s f u l l y c o m p e t e n t t o e x e c u t e i n s tr u m e n t s o f t h e c h a r a c te r h e r e
i n v o l v e d , t h i s C o u r t f i n d s u p o n d e n o v o e x a m i n a t i o n o f th e e v i d e n c e t h a t h e w a s
s o c o m p e te n t.
Roberts, 8 2 7 S . W . 2 d a t 7 9 5 ; see also England v. Burns Stone Co., Inc., 8 7 4 S . W . 2 d 3 2 , 3 8 ( T e n n . A p p .
1 9 9 3 ) . T h e s o u r c e s o f i n c a p a c i t y a l l e g e d i n Woods, “ p a r a n o i a , p s y c h o t i c t h i n k i n g , n u m e r o u s s o m a t i c c o m p l a i n t s , a n d
e x t r e m e a n x i e t y , ” Woods, supra, a t * 1 , a r e m o r e p r o n e t o b e t e m p o r a r y a n d n o t l i f e - l o n g . I n c o n t r a s t , t h e s o u r c e o f
B r o t h e r ’ s a ll e g e d in c a p a c it y i s a l o w i n t e l l i g e n c e , a t r a i t t h a t i s c e r t a i n l y m o r e p r o n e t o b e l i f e -l o n g . I n f a c t , t h e e v i d e n c e
p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l i s c o n s i s te n t w i t h t h e f i n d i n g t h a t B r o t h e r h a s s u f f e r e d f r o m a d i m i n i s h e d m e n t a l c a p a c i t y t h r o u g h o u t
h i s li fe . T h e r e f o r e , th e t ri a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r in c o n s i d e r i n g D r . S o t to n g ’ s d e p o s i ti o n t e s t im o n y .
T h e p r e p o n d e ra n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s th e t ri a l c o u r t ’ s fi n d i n g t h a t B r o t h e r d i d n o t h a v e t h e r e q u i s it e
m e n t a l c a p a c i t y t o c o n s e n t t o t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s a t i s s u e . A n a g g l o m e r a t i o n o f a ll o f t h e p r o o f p r e s e n t e d a t t r ia l
d e m o n s tr a t e s t h a t B r o t h e r s a t i s f i e d h i s b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a t h e w a s m e n t a l l y i n c a p a b l e o f c o n s e n t i n g t o D e c e d e n t ’ s
a c t i o n s . See Roberts, 8 2 7 S . W . 2 d a t 7 9 2 - 9 5 . S u c h a f i n d i n g i s m o s t n o t a b l y s u p p o r t e d b y t e s t i m o n y f r o m n u m e r o u s
f a m i ly m e m b e r s t h a t B r o t h e r h a s b e e n m e n t a l l y “ s l o w ” h i s e n t i r e l if e a n d h a s r e l i e d o n o t h e r s t o h a n d l e h i s f i n a n c e s .
W h i l e t h e t r ia l c o u r t r e a c h e d t h e r i g h t c o n c l u s io n c o n c e r n i n g B r o t h e r ’ s m e n t a l c a p a c i t y , w e d i f f e r w i t h t h e
r e s u l t r e a c h e d b y t h e t ri a l c o u r t . A c c o r d i n g l y , th e t ri a l c o u r t ’ s ru l in g i s m o d i fi e d a s f o l lo w s :
D u e t o B r o t h e r ’ s in c a p a c i t y , D e c e d e n t ’ s te r m i n a t i o n o f I n t e r f e d e r a l B a n k A c c o u n ts N o . 2 7 3 3 8 - 1 0 , N o . 2 8 4 6 4 -
1 0 , a n d N o . 7 4 2 7 4 - 1 0 a n d s u b s e q u e n t t r a n s f e r o f t h e s e f u n d s to I n t e r f e d e r a l T r u s t A c c o u n ts N o . 3 1 0 1 3 - 1 0 , N o . 3 1 0 1 4 -
1 0 , a n d N o . 2 1 5 7 9 5 - 1 0 r e s p e c ti v e l y a r e n u l l a n d v o i d t o t h e e x t e n t o f o n e - h a l f o f t h e f u n d s tr a n s f e r r e d . A c c o u n t N o .
2 7 3 3 8 - 1 0 w a s w o r t h $ 7 ,5 2 0 .5 5 a t t h e ti m e t h a t i t w a s c lo s e d . B e c a u s e it i s p r e s u m e d t h a t h a l f o f th e f u n d s w e r e o w n e d
b y B r o t h e r , Leffew, 6 8 5 S . W . 2 d a t 2 9 1 , B r o t h e r i s e n t i t l e d t o $ 3 , 7 6 0 . 2 8 . S i n c e A c c o u n t N o . 2 8 4 6 4 - 1 0 w a s w o r t h
$ 6 , 2 1 7 . 0 3 a t t h e t i m e t h a t i t w a s c lo s e d , B r o th e r is e n t i t l e d t o $ 3 , 1 0 8 . 5 2 f o r t h i s a c c o u n t, a n d s i n c e A c c o u n t N o . 7 4 2 7 4 -
1 0 w a s w o r t h $ 1 7 ,9 3 6 .9 8 a t t h e t i m e t h a t i t w a s c lo s e d , B r o th e r is e n t i t l e d t o $ 8 ,9 6 8 .4 9 f o r th i s a c c o u n t . B r o t h e r i s a l s o
e n t i t l e d t o t h e a c c o u n t in t e r e s t f o r t h e f u n d s a w a r d e d f r o m t h e d a t e o f t r a n s f e r , J u n e 6 , 1 9 8 0 , u n t i l t h e f u n d s a r e r e s t o r e d
t o B r o th e r . T h e r e m a i n d e r o f th e f u n d s t h a t w e r e t r a n s f e rr e d f r o m t h e s e a c c o u n t s s h a l l c o n t in u e t o b e h e l d in a c c o r d a n c e
w i t h D e c e d e n t ’ s s p e c if i c a ti o n s a n d t h e t r ia l c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g i s r e v e r s e d t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e s u c c e s s o r a c c o u n t s to a n y o f
th e s e tr u s t a c c o u n ts a r e d e c la re d n u ll a n d v o id .
T h e o rig in o f th e B a n k A c c o u n t a t is su e , F irs t F e d e ra l A c c o u n t N o . 8 -9 -1 2 1 6 , w a s A c c o u n t N o . L S -9 7 , a n d
w a s j o i n t l y o w n e d b y D e c e d e n t , B r o t h e r a n d H e n r y H . K n i g h t , S r .. S i n c e B r o t h e r i s e n t i t l e d t o h i s o n e - t h i r d p r o r a t a
12
s h a r e o f t h e $ 1 1 , 8 8 0 . 7 2 v a l u e o f t h i s a c c o u n t a t t h e t i m e t h a t i t w a s c l o s e d b y D e c e d e n t , 11 t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g i s
m o d ifie d so th a t B ro th e r is o w e d $ 3 , 9 6 0 .2 4 p lu s a c c o u n t in t e r e s t f o r th e p e r io d m e n t io n e d a b o v e . T h e r e m a in d e r o f th e
s u m s i n t h i s a c c o u n t w e r e p e rm i s s i b l y t r a n s f e r r e d t o T r u s t A c c o u n t N o . 8 - 9 - 1 0 3 2 , l i s ti n g D e c e d e n t a s t r u s t e e f o r B r o th e r
o r H e n r y H . K n ig h t, S r . . P u r s u a n t t o t h e te r m s o f t h e D i s c r e t i o n a r y R e v o c a b l e T r u s t A g r e e m e n t , D e c e d e n t w a s e n t i t l e d
t o r e v o k e t h e a g r e e m e n t b e f o r e h e r d e a t h a n d t ra n s f e r th e f u n d s t o A c c o u n t N o . 8 - 9 - 1 2 1 6 , l i s ti n g D e c e d e n t a n d S i s t e r
o r j o i n t t e n a n t s . 12 Hamilton, 4 6 T e n n . A p p . a t 3 8 2 - 8 3 , 3 3 0 S . W . 2 d a t 4 0 - 4 1 . T h u s , S i s t e r , a s s u r v i v i n g j o i n t t e n a n t ,
w a s e n t i t l e d t o t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e s u m s i n t h i s a c c o u n t a t t h e t i m e o f D e c e d e n t ’ s d e a t h . Lowry, 5 4 1 S . W . 2 d a t 1 3 2 .
S i n c e th e s e a r e th e o n ly a c c o u n ts ra is e d o n a p p e a l, w e d o n o t a lte r th e tr ia l c o u rt’ s ru lin g to th e e x t e n t th a t it
a p p l i e s t o t h e o t h e r a c c o u n t s n o t r a i s e d o n a p p e a l . A l l o t h e r i s s u e s o n a p p e a l a r e p r e t e r m i tt e d b y t h i s h o l d i n g .
T h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r ia l c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d i n p a r t , m o d i f i e d i n p a r t a n d r e m a n d e d . O n r e m a n d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t
s h a l l d e t e r m i n e t h e e x a c t a m o u n t d u e B r o t h e r c o n s i s te n t w i t h t h i s O p i n i o n . C o s ts o f t h e a p p e a l a r e a s s e s s e d e q u a l l y t o
b o t h p a r ti e s .
_________________________________
W. FRANK CRAWFORD,
PRESIDING JUDGE, W.S.
CONCUR:
____________________________________
DAVID R. FARMER, JUDGE
____________________________________
HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, JUDGE
11
There is no dispute that Brother did not have capacity to consent to the addition of
Henry H. Knight, Sr.’s name on the signatory card in 1979 and, thus, we calculate his pro rata
interest as one-third of the account and not one-half of the account.
12
Brother cites no authority for the proposition that a revocable trust may not be
revoked in the event that a beneficiary is incapacitated.
13