A Tennessee woman inherited her brother's house, then found strangers living there after a fake heir sold it while she was abroad; a court has revived her fraud claim against the title company, but not negligence

A Tennessee appeals court has revived the fraud claim of a woman who discovered, after returning to the United States from abroad in 2021, that the house she had inherited from her late brother had been sold without her knowledge using a fake identity and forged documents. A woman using a fake identity had claimed to be the rightful heir. In its Thursday ruling, the court allowed Barbara Chesnut to pursue her fraud claim against the company involved in the sale but upheld the dismissal of her negligence claim.According to court records, Chesnut had acquired the house in Cottontown, Tennessee, in 2012 after her brother, James Upchurch, died without leaving a will. His estate was divided among several heirs, and Chesnut arranged to buy the property using her inheritance along with additional funds. She lived in the house before moving to the United Arab Emirates around the time the estate proceedings were being completed.While she moved overseas, Chesnut continued to use the Tennessee property as her permanent address and stayed there whenever she visited the United States. Between 2013 and 2014, she also allowed two people to live in the house. One of them was Vickie Podczervinski. Both occupants left sometime between 2016 and 2017, after which Chesnut returned and stayed for several months.She eventually went back to the UAE. When the Covid-19 pandemic disrupted international travel, she was unable to return to the United States for a considerable period. By the time she visited again in 2021, the house was occupied by people she did not recognise.Fake documents used to sell the houseThe sale had taken place in January 2020, when Chesnut was still overseas. Someone had presented herself as "Dorothy Chestnut" and claimed that she was the only child of Chesnut's deceased brother.Using that identity, the person agreed to sell the house to Ultra Home Solutions, LLC. The transaction was handled by Rudy Title and Escrow, LLC, which had been named as the buyer's closing attorney.The supposed seller provided documents intended to establish her right to the property. Among them were two affidavits stating that Upchurch had died unmarried and without a will, leaving Dorothy Chestnut as his only legal heir. An Arizona driving licence carrying the same name was also submitted.The paperwork further authorised John Gleaves, an employee of Rudy Title, to sign the documents required to complete the sale on behalf of the person claiming ownership.The house was transferred to Ultra Home Solutions in January 2020. The transfer was recorded with Sumner County authorities. Over the following months, the property was sold twice more.After returning to the US and learning about the transactions, Chesnut contacted the police. The investigation eventually led to Podczervinski, who had previously lived in the house with Chesnut's permission, pleading guilty to the property theft.During the subsequent civil proceedings, both sides accepted that Dorothy Chestnut was not a genuine person involved in the inheritance.Chesnut sued company handling the saleChesnut approached the Sumner County Circuit Court in August 2022, seeking to have her ownership legally recognised. She named the title company, the original buyer, Gleaves and later purchasers in her case.She argued that the fraudulent transaction could have been detected if the title company had examined the records of her brother's estate before proceeding with the sale.Those records, she maintained, would have identified the people legally entitled to inherit Upchurch's property. She accused Rudy Title of negligence in preparing the transaction and also alleged fraudulent conduct. Her lawsuit sought damages of at least $1 million.The proceedings against the other parties were later dismissed or withdrawn, leaving Rudy Title as the remaining defendant.The company denied that it owed Chesnut a legal duty of care. Its position was that she had no contractual relationship with the firm, which had been involved in completing the transaction for the buyer.In March 2025, the circuit court ruled in favour of Rudy Title. It concluded that Chesnut had not shown that she relied on information or actions provided by the company in managing her own affairs. The court dismissed her entire case.What Appeals court saidChesnut challenged the dismissal, arguing that the company should not have escaped legal scrutiny over its role in the transaction.The Tennessee Court of Appeals examined her arguments but found problems with the way her negligence case had been presented. Some legal grounds she relied on during the appeal had not been raised before the circuit court. Another argument had not been sufficiently developed or supported. As a result, the appeals court left the dismissal of the negligence claim unchanged.The fraud allegation, however, presented a separate issue. The judges found that Rudy Title had asked the lower court to dismiss the negligence claim without addressing Chesnut's accusation of intentional fraudulent conduct.The circuit court had nevertheless dismissed the whole lawsuit, including the allegation that had not been examined in the company's request.The appeals court found that this was improper and restored the fraud portion of Chesnut's case. It directed the lower court to conduct further proceedings.You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.