If the parties to a transaction do not occupy relations of trust and confidence, there is no presumption of undue influence;1 and the burden of proof rests upon the party who claims existence of undue influence as a fact.2 The party upon whom the burden of establishing undue influence rests, must establish its existence by clear and convincing evidence.3 The fact that the party who is claimed to have exercised undue influence has an opportunity to exercise it and has the power to exercise it, is not of itself sufficient to establish its existence.4 The fact that a grantor has conveyed a very large portion of his property to one of his relatives and that he has retained a comparatively small amount of property to provide for himself and to bestow upon his other relatives, may be considered in determining the existence of undue influence.5 The fact that a parent is shown to have a liking for one child and a dislike for another is not sufficient to establish undue influence.6 The fact that conveyances of property by a parent result in an unequal and unfair distribution of his property among his children, is not sufficient to show that he was induced to make such conveyances by undue influence.7 The feeling of a party to a transaction for the other is material as bearing on the question of undue influence.8 Kindness and attention to a person of advanced years do not show that undue influence exists,9 if the evidence shows that the person who is alleged to be subject to undue influence is carrying out a fixed purpose which he himself has formed.10