Hargett v. Brown
| Docket Number | M2022-00250-COA-R3-CV |
| Decision Date | 09 June 2023 |
| Parties | ESTATE OF WILLIE HAROLD HARGETT ET AL. v. CHARLOTTE R. HODGES BROWN |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Session March 28, 2023
Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sumner County No. 2019-CV-39 Louis W. Oliver, Chancellor.
A decedent's estate sued his girlfriend for the proceeds of his life insurance policy, items from his home that were missing or damaged, and money withdrawn from his credit union account. The trial court found for the estate on the basis of fraud, conversion, and undue influence. The girlfriend appealed. We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part and remand.
Tenn R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part; Vacated in Part and Remanded
Robert J. Turner and Matt A. Bromund, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Charlotte R. Hodges Brown.
Carol Soloman and Dominic J. Leonardo, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, John D. Towe, Melissa Ann Martin, Faith Renee Hargett, Robbie Jo Hargett, and the Estate of Willie Harold Hargett.
OPINION
This appeal involves the estate of Willie Hargett ("Decedent"). Decedent and Plaintiff/Appellee Robbie Hargett ("Wife") were married in May 1984 and have one adult daughter, Plaintiff/Appellee Faith Hargett ("Daughter"). [1] Decedent and Wife experienced marital difficulties, culminating in Wife moving into her own apartment in early December 2016. No divorce action was filed. Decedent provided no support to Wife other than paying the initial deposit for her apartment and moving Wife's clothing and some furniture from the marital home. At some point prior to Wife moving out, Decedent and Defendant/Appellant Charlotte Hodges Brown ("Appellant") met online and began a relationship. Appellant moved into the home with Decedent in late December 2016.
Decedent was diagnosed with lung cancer in February 2018. In April 2018, Decedent directed an attorney to prepare various legal documents. A general durable power of attorney and a durable power of attorney for healthcare were created, both of which designated Appellant and John Towe, a longtime friend of Decedent, as co-attorneys-in-fact. While Daughter had previously been named the beneficiary on Decedent's credit union account, Appellant was added to the account in October 2018 and named as the sole pay-on-death beneficiary.
Also in October 2018, Decedent began the process to retire. Prior to retirement, Decedent had a $250,000.00 supplemental life insurance policy through his employer. Upon retirement, that policy reduced to $10,000.00. In November 2018, Decedent applied to reinstate the additional life insurance benefits. A letter dated November 20, 2018, was sent to Decedent's address from his insurance company, indicating that his claim for $50,000.00 in Basic Group life insurance and $200,000.00 in optional group life insurance had been approved.[2]
Decedent was hospitalized in early December 2018 and died a couple days later, on December 5. The funeral was held December 12. A detainer warrant was issued by the Sumner County General Sessions Court against Appellant on December 20. Decedent's estate was then opened in the Sumner County Chancery Court ("the trial court") on January 8, 2019. On January 10, 2019, Decedent's estate was granted a judgment for possession and Appellant was evicted from the marital home.[3]
A petition was filed in the trial court on March 26, 2019, seeking damages and a temporary restraining order against Appellant. The petition was filed in the name of Decedent's estate, Wife, as surviving spouse and next of kin, Daughter, John Towe, and Melissa Martin (collectively, "Appellees"). Appellees raised as causes of action: intentional conversion, fraud or intentional misrepresentation, fraud, tortious interference with a contract, and forgery.[4] The petition focused on two main aspects of Decedent's estate: his life insurance proceeds and items and money missing from the marital estate.
First, Appellees alleged that Appellant had fraudulently been named as Decedent's life insurance beneficiary. In February 2018, Decedent named Mr. Towe, a longtime friend, as the insurance beneficiary via a beneficiary-designation form submitted to his employer's human resources department. Decedent orally instructed Mr. Towe to use the proceeds to pay off Decedent's debts and then provide the reminder to Daughter and her child. Then in March 2018, Decedent used the same process to update the policies so that Mr. Towe was the primary beneficiary, Mr. Towe's significant other, Ms. Martin, was the first contingent beneficiary, and Appellant was the second contingent beneficiary. Appellees take no issue with Mr. Towe being the primary beneficiary.
But in October 2018, two additional changes were purportedly made to Decedent's policy. On October 1, a beneficiary-designation form was submitted with Decedent's employer, naming Appellant as Decedent's "life partner" and the sole primary beneficiary of the life insurance benefits. Then on October 10, another form was filed, again listing Appellant as the sole insurance beneficiary.[5] Appellees argued that the signatures on these two beneficiary-designation forms did not match those of earlier forms. Mr. Towe and Ms. Martin both submitted affidavits with the complaint, stating that they believed Appellant was only concerned with Decedent's money and that Mr. Towe was meant to be the primary beneficiary of Decedent's life insurance.
Appellees also hired an expert to examine the October 2018 life insurance beneficiary-designation forms and determine the authenticity of those naming Appellant as Decedent's beneficiary. The expert, Ms. Marty Pearce, noted in her report that she compared the two newest forms to the two earlier forms and three additional known signatures. Ms. Pearce stated in her report, which was attached to Appellees' complaint, that the October forms were most likely signed by someone other than Decedent and that the "evidence is persuasive and points strongly" towards the signer of the October forms being "an imposter." Appellees argued that the October 2018 beneficiary-designation forms should be set aside as void and requested that the insurance proceeds be paid to Decedent's estate or to Mr. Towe as the appropriately designated beneficiary.
The second issue raised in Appellees' complaint involved the contents of Decedent's credit union account and items missing from the marital home. During the course of Decedent's hospitalization, Appellant withdrew $3,500.00 from Decedent's account, although Appellees noted that several of Decedent's bills had not been paid for the two months prior to his death. Appellees also alleged that when Wife and Daughter returned to the marital home in January 2019, they discovered several items of value were missing. Appellees stated that the missing items belonged to Decedent's estate or were separate property belonging to Wife. Appellees asserted that Appellant had either converted these items directly or used her position as power of attorney to transfer title into her own name after Decedent's death. As relief, Appellees requested that the missing items be held in a constructive trust along with the life insurance proceeds.
Trial was eventually held July 28 and 29, 2021. Wife testified regarding her estimation of the value of several items she believed were missing from the home upon her January 2019 return. Wife also described instances of damage in the home that she had paid to have repaired. These included a set of Appellant's keys that were found in the septic tank pipe and a series of holes poked into the bottom of the swimming pool. On cross-examination, Wife also admitted that the house was otherwise undamaged and many items of personal property remained in the home after Appellant moved out. Wife was unable to identify any of the signatures on the four beneficiary-designation forms as belonging to Decedent.
Ms. Pearce, as a "forensic handwriting expert," testified next and provided her opinion that the signatures on the October 2018 beneficiary-designation forms were not authentic. Ms. Pearce testified that a signer's medical condition could affect their handwriting. While she was on the stand, counsel for Appellant provided Ms. Pearce with several documents from the record, including several from the same date as one of the October forms, and requested that she analyze the signatures in comparison to those included in her report. Ms. Pearce stated that that it would be "not at all professional" to "make any kind of assumption" without a complete analysis of the documents. After counsel for Appellees objected to the request, the trial court declined to require Ms. Pearce to formulate an opinion on the authenticity of the provided documents "on the fly." Counsel for Appellant requested to make an offer of proof by explaining that his intent was to have Ms. Pearce explain whether her conclusion regarding the authenticity of the signature on the October 10, 2018 beneficiary-designation form would be affected by comparing it to other uncontested forms from the same day. Once the trial court left the courtroom, counsel for Appellant continued to cross-examine Ms. Pearce regarding her impressions of the documents in an offer of proof.
There were several inconsistencies between Appellant's testimony at trial and her earlier deposition. Primary among the inconsistencies was Appellant's testimony regarding her withdrawals from the bank account to which she had been added in October 2018....
To continue reading
Request your trial