Estate of Spencer v. Hudspeth
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-00058-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-27-2007 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Validity of deed of gift - Confidential relationship - Presumption of undue influence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-11-2005 Appealed from: TATE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Mitchell M. Lundy, Jr. Disposition: ORDER ENTERED DENYING THE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO SET ASIDE A DEED. Case Number: 96-12-390 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | RUBY LANE MABRY SPENCER, A/K/A RUBY
LANE MABRAY SPENCER, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ETHEL
LUCILLE MABRY HUDSPETH, DECEASED |
ROBERT Q. WHITWELL |
||
| Appellee: | EVA MAE HUDSPETH, JOANNE HUDSPETH SEALY, AND LIBBY RED ROSS | LEIGH ANN DARBY |
|
|
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: | Real property - Validity of deed of gift - Confidential relationship - Presumption of undue influence |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 1972, Ethel Hudspeth prepared a will in which she named her niece Ruby Spencer as executrix, sole beneficiary, and devisee of her estate. Included in the will was forty acres of land acquired by Ethel as part of divorce proceedings with a former husband. In 1983, Ethel had a stroke and suffered a heart attack. Ruby, her two sisters, and Montie Hudspeth, Ethel’s husband, took care of Ethel. In 1985, Ethel was placed in a nursing home. In 1988, Montie died three months before Ethel died. Four days prior to his death, Montie conveyed his interest in the forty acres to his brother, Marvin Hudspeth. Prior to Ethel’s death, Ruby was appointed conservator of Ethel’s estate. Ruby testified that she discovered a deed, which was dated June 30, 1986, that conveyed Ethel’s interest in the forty acres to Montie. Ruby filed a motion to set aside a warranty deed of gift which the court denied. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The first question in deciding whether a party’s actions constituted undue influence is to determine if there existed a confidential relationship between the grantor and the grantee. The chancellor in this case did not decide whether a confidential relationship existed between Ethel and Montie. Factors to be considered when determining whether a confidential relationship exists are whether one person has to be taken care of by another, whether one person maintains a close relationship with another, whether one person is provided transportation and has their medical care provided for by another, whether one person maintains a joint account 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 the other. Montie was responsible for caring for Ethel after she became ill. The two maintained a joint account, Ethel was physically and mentally weak, she was of advanced age and in poor health, and a power of attorney had been established. Thus, a confidential relationship existed between the two. When circumstances give rise to a presumption of undue influence, the burden of proof shifts to the grantee to establish by clear and convincing evidence the validity of the gift by showing that the grantee/beneficiary acted in good faith, that the grantor had full knowledge and deliberation of his actions and the consequences of those actions, and that the grantor exhibited independent consent and action. The attorney who executed the deed testified that Montie and his brother came to his office and asked him to draft the deed. He did not witness Ethel’s signing of the deed. Moreover, the notary stated that Ethel was in the nursing home and not present when the deed was notarized. Montie paid the fees to have the deed drafted and the consideration was for $10. The deed was executed on June 30, 1986, but was not recorded until December 29, 1986. Furthermore, Ruby testified that she had no knowledge of the deed until she was named conservator. All this suggests that the grantee/beneficiary did not act in good faith. There was no independent advice or counsel given to Ethel by any person. Since the presumption was not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, the inter vivos deed to Montie was invalid. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
