Howell v. May, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-02259-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-02259-COA ; 2005-CT-02259-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2007 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Setting aside deed - Undue influence - Inter vivos gift - Failure to request special findings - M.R.C.P. 52(a) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-29-2005 Appealed from: TATE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: DEED AND INTERVIVOS GIFTS SET ASIDE. OTHER INTER VIVOS GIFTS NOT SET ASIDE. Case Number: 03-10-357PL |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | SHARNEE M. HOWELL AND CHESTER LEE HOWELL "C.L." HOWELL |
THOMAS HENRY FREELAND
CHARLIE GAINES BAKER |
||
| Appellee: | PAT MAY, CLAYTON MAY AND JOSIE MAY TIDWELL | PHIL R. HINTON |
|
|
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 - Setting aside deed - Undue influence - Inter vivos gift - Failure to request special findings - M.R.C.P. 52(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | During her lifetime, Ann May deeded her home to her daughter, Sharnee Howell. Ann also gave Sharnee a $6,000 cash gift and $5,000 to each of Sharnee’s two children. After Ann died, Sharnee’s siblings sued and sought to set aside the deed and the cash gifts. The chancellor found that Sharnee had a confidential relationship with Ann and that Sharnee failed to adequately rebut the presumption of undue influence that resulted. The chancellor set aside Ann’s deed to Sharnee but did not set aside Ann’s inter vivos cash gifts. Sharnee appeals, and the Mays cross-appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Setting aside deed Sharnee conceded that she had a confidential relationship with Ann. To rebut the presumption of undue influence, Sharnee was obligated to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, good faith on her part, Ann’s full knowledge and deliberation of her actions and the consequences of her actions, and independent consent and action by Ann. Sharnee submits that Ann deeded her home to Sharnee as consideration for Sharnee’s caring for Ann after her husband died. Sharnee also testified that she never expected Ann to give her the house and that she did not take care of Ann pursuant to some agreement that she would receive the house. The evidence does not suggest that Ann’s decision to deed her house to Sharnee was necessarily a secret. However, a reasonable person could find that Ann’s decision was not necessarily open. Not one of Ann’s siblings or her children, except Sharnee, knew that Ann planned to deed her home to Sharnee until after the fact. A reasonable interpretation of the testimony indicates that Ann did not understand how her documents, including the deed, affected the distribution of her estate. It appears that Ann asked Sharnee to deed the house back to her, but Sharnee refused to do so. There was no evidence that Ann received advice from anyone when she deeded her home to Sharnee. There was substantial evidence that Sharnee participated during the meetings with the attorney. Given this evidence, the chancellor did not err in setting aside the deed. Issue 2: Inter vivos gift The Mays did not specifically ask the chancellor to set aside the $6,000 cash gift to Sharnee in either their complaint or their amended complaint although they did ask the chancellor to set aside “all inter vivos conveyances” from Ann to Sharnee. However, the chancellor did not discuss Ann’s $6,000 cash gift to Sharnee in either his opinion or his judgment. By failing to request special findings regarding Ann’s cash gift to Sharnee pursuant to M.R.C.P. 52(a), the Mays waived the issue on appeal. The Mays also argue that the chancellor erred when he did not set aside Ann’s cash gifts to Sharnee’s children. The Mays do not contend that there was a confidential relationship between Ann and Sharnee’s children. Instead, the Mays claim that Ann’s cash gifts to her grandchildren should be set aside solely as a product of Ann’s relationship with Sharnee. Because there is no evidence that Sharnee in any way convinced or otherwise influenced Ann’s decision to give the $5,000 gifts, the chancellor did not err. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
