The Court of Appeals of Tennessee finds that the trial court correctly prevented unreliable expert testimony. Yet the damages it awarded were partially baseless, as several stemmed from mere speculation and another derived from allegations lacking sufficient notice. In Estate of Hargett v. Charlotte Brown (Tenn. Ct. App. No. M2022-00250-COA-R3-CV, June 9, 2023).
The decedent, Willie Hargett, had a wife, Robbie Hargett, and a daughter, Faith Hargett. Although he remained married, he started a relationship with Charlotte Hodges Brown. His wife moved into an apartment, and his girlfriend moved into the home.
Following a cancer diagnosis, Mr. Hargett passed. His estate, wife, daughter, and friends sought a temporary restraining order and damages against his girlfriend. They alleged that she forged his signature on his life insurance policy to make her the beneficiary and that she wrongfully converted his property into her possession.
The trial court permitted the testimony of a handwriting expert, Ms. Marty Pearce. Over six days, she analyzed the signatures and concluded that the signature on the beneficiary designation form was a forgery. During cross-examination, Ms. Brown’s counsel attempted to ask her to analyze another signature on the stand. The court did not allow it because the expert witness had insufficient time to complete a reliable analysis.
The girlfriend argued that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the handwriting analysis on the stand. The appellate court disagrees. While she had the right to impeach the expert witness’ credibility via cross-examination, the court must ensure that all scientific testimony is reliable. In this case, there was not enough time for reliable analysis.
The lower court ordered the girlfriend to pay roughly $37,000 for items taken from the home and bank account, many of which were based on the wife’s value estimate. On appeal, the court concludes that while some of the estimates stemmed from reasoned analysis, others were mere speculation. Disregarding the speculatory values, the court reduces the award to $30,000.
Ms. Brown further argued that the trial court erred in finding she unduly influenced the decedent. Since the estate did not properly raise undue influence as a cause of action and Ms. Brown lacked notice, undue influence cannot be the basis for requiring her to pay the $3,500 she took from an account. On remand, the court may find another basis for this portion of the damages.
The Tennessee appellate court finds that the lower court did not abuse its discretion concerning expert testimony but that it erred in part with respect to the damages.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
