In re Estate of Hood, et al. v. Parker
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00964-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-01-2007 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Undue influence - Constructive trust - M.R.C.P. 15(b) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-16-2005 Appealed from: MARION COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Johnny Lee Williams Disposition: CHANCELLOR DENIED COMPLAINT TO SET ASIDE CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY. Case Number: 00-0027-PR-W |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF RUSSELL HOOD, DECEASED, CHERYL D. HORNE, PETITIONER |
AL SHIYOU |
||
| Appellee: | BERNIE O. PARKER AND WIFE, MARILYN S. PARKER | R. ANDREW FOXWORTH |
|
|
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 - Undue influence - Constructive trust - M.R.C.P. 15(b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cheryl Horne, as administratrix of the estate of Russell Hood, brought this action to set aside a conveyance made from Hood to Bernie and Marilyn Parker. The chancellor denied the petition. Horne appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Horne argues that the Parkers failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence raised in this case. A party claiming an inter vivos transfer is void because of undue influence must show by clear and convincing evidence that a confidential relationship existed between the grantor and grantee/beneficiary. In order to overcome the presumption of undue influence, the Parkers must show that they exhibited good faith in the fiduciary relationship with Hood; Hood acted with knowledge and deliberation when he executed the deed; and Hood exhibited independent consent and action. The evidence was that Hood sought preparation of the deed. In a letter to Horne, Hood stated he would give the property to someone other than Horne if she would not promise to live there. In addition, Bernie testified that one year prior to the execution of the deed, Hood offered to give the Parkers the property, but Bernie insisted Hood give it to a family member. The Parkers both testified that the first they knew of the deed was when Hood delivered it to them. The deed was executed in the attorney’s office, with only Hood and the attorney present. The evidence was undisputed that Hood was aware that his homestead was an asset. He appeared aware of its general value. The evidence is undisputed that Hood was aware that Horne was his only heir and beneficiary under his prior will. He was also fully cognizant that the deed would disinherit her. No one disputes that Hood knew that the Parkers were non-relative grantees and that he was favoring them over his family. The evidence was only that Hood was fiercely independent. Horne admitted he was stubborn, had a mind of his own, and was very private. Hood made up his mind to give the property to the Parkers, and neither Bernie nor Horne could persuade him otherwise. Hood was concerned that rising medical costs would force him out of his home into a nursing home. Not receiving the assurances he sought from his daughter, he sought these assurances from the Parkers. Thus, there is substantial credible evidence to support the chancellor. Horne also argues that a constructive trust be placed on the property. The Parkers argue the constructive trust argument is waived for failure to plead it below. Although Horne did not plead constructive trust, it was the Parkers that introduced the evidence of a constructive trust. When the Parkers introduced the evidence, and Horne did not object, the pleadings were amended by operation of M.R.C.P. 15(b). A constructive trust arises by operation of law against one who, by fraud, actual or constructive, by duress or abuse of confidence, by commission of wrong, or by any form of unconscionable conduct, artifice, concealment, or questionable means, or who in any way against equity and good conscience, either has obtained or holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold and enjoy. Bernie testified about what he was obligated to do with regard to the property. The evidence is that Bernie kept up his end of the bargain. He let Hood remain in the house until he died. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
