Brown, et al. v. Ainsworth
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00329-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-28-2006 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Burden of proof - Confidential relationship - Competency proceeding - Undue influence - Expert witness Judge(s) Concurring: LEE, MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: KING, C.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-15-2004 Appealed from: SIMPSON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: John Grant Disposition: DENIED PETITION TO SET ASIDE DEED ON GROUNDS OF UNDUE INFLUENCE OR INCOMPETENCY. Case Number: 2000-33 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | KAY BROWN, AS CONSERVATOR OF THE
ESTATE OF SAMUEL WILSON BROWN, WARD,
MELVIN N. BROWN AND JIMMY BROWN |
STEPHEN L. BEACH |
||
| Appellee: | CHARLES AINSWORTH | RICHARD REDFERN |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Wills & estates - Burden of proof - Confidential relationship - Competency proceeding - Undue influence - Expert witness |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kay Brown, as conservator of Samuel Wilson Brown’s estate, Melvin Brown, and Jimmy Brown filed a petition to set aside a deed conveying property from Samuel to Charles Ainsworth, on the grounds of undue influence and incompetency. The court found that no undue influence had been exerted and that Samuel was competent when he conveyed the property to Ainsworth. The Browns appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Burden of proof The Browns argue that they proved that there was a confidential relationship between Samuel and Ainsworth, such that the burden of proof to show that there was no undue influence exercised in the conveyance shifted to Ainsworth. Only upon a finding that there was a confidential relationship would the burden shift to Ainsworth to show that there was no fraud or undue influence exercised in the course of the conveyance. When determining whether a confidential relationship is present, the court considers whether one person has to be taken care of by others, whether one person maintains a close relationship with another, whether one person is provided transportation and has his medical care provided for by another, whether one person maintains joint accounts with another, whether one is physically or mentally weak, whether one is of advanced age or poor health, and whether there exists a power of attorney between the one and another. The court did not err in finding that the Browns failed to prove that there was a confidential relationship between Samuel and Ainsworth. Ainsworth did not provide medical care or other significant care for Samuel, he did not share joint accounts with him, and he did not enjoy power of attorney. While Samuel had mental and physical problems, the evidence presented did not indicate that those problems prevented him from making his own decisions or running his own life to the point where it would be easy for another person to exert control over his decisions. Furthermore, while Samuel and Ainsworth enjoyed a close friendship, none of the evidence presented about that relationship indicated that Ainsworth controlled Samuel in any way. Since there was no confidential relationship, the burden of proof remained with the Browns to show that undue influence was exerted over Samuel in the execution of the deed to Ainsworth. Issue 2: Competency proceeding The Browns argue that the circuit court should have addressed the validity of the 1995 competency proceeding, which restored Samuel to reason. However, as correctly pointed out by the court below, this was not an action to challenge the 1995 competency proceeding. Issue 3: Undue influence The Browns argue that, even if they failed to show that there was a confidential relationship between Samuel and Ainsworth, the chancellor still erred in finding that Ainsworth did not exercise undue influence over Samuel in the execution of the deed. In order to set aside a deed on grounds of undue influence, evidence must show that the will and free agency of the grantor were destroyed and the deed actually reflects the will of the person exerting the influence. No evidence presented in this case indicates that Samuel’s will and free agency were destroyed by Ainsworth. Therefore, the court did not err in declining to set the deed aside on the ground of undue influence. Issue 4: Expert witness The Browns argue that the court erred in declining to rule on the basis of their expert witness. The record shows that the court clearly considered the testimony of the Browns’ expert witnesses. The expert witness testified that, in his opinion, Samuel was incompetent to execute the 1998 deed. However, the witness did not know Samuel in 1998, and only met him after being hired to help the Browns prepare for their lawsuit against Ainsworth. He came to his opinions after studying all of Samuel’s medical records and speaking to Samuel and other family members. Although the court was required to take the expert’s testimony under consideration, his testimony was not such that the court was required to agree with his assessment that Samuel was incompetent in April of 1998. The question of the expert’s credibility is a determination properly left with the trial court, which was not required to accept his testimony, especially when that testimony was called into question repeatedly during cross-examination. Therefore, the lower court was not clearly erroneous in finding that the expert’s testimony did not overcome the presumption of competency. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
