In re Boyles v. Tadlock
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00378-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00378-COA ; 2007-CT-00378-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-18-2008 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Lack of testamentary capacity - Post-will evidence - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 404(b) - Confidential relationship - Breach of fiduciary duty - Certificates of deposit Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: KING, C.J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-27-2006 Appealed from: SMITH COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: J. Larry Buffington Disposition: DISMISSED APPELLANT’S PETITION CONTESTING DECEDENT'S WILL. Case Number: 2002-185 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | IN THE MATTER OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF MYRTLE ESTELLE MOORE BOYLES, DECEASED: PEGGY WINDHAM, DOROTHY GIBBONS, BOBBY BARNES, ROBERT D. BOYLES, JAMES C. BOYLES, RACHEL G. RUSSUM, WILLIE J. GASKIN, AND BOBBY J. BOYLES |
GREGORY MOREAU JOHNSTON,
LEM G. ADAMS |
||
| Appellee: | JANE P. TADLOCK AND ROBERT B. TADLOCK | ALEITA M. SULLIVAN |
|
|
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 - Lack of testamentary capacity - Post-will evidence - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 404(b) - Confidential relationship - Breach of fiduciary duty - Certificates of deposit |
| Summary of the Facts: | After the sole beneficiary of Estelle Boyles’ will met an untimely death, Mrs. Boyles executed a will leaving the entirety of her estate to her long-time friend, Jane Tadlock. Following Mrs. Boyles’ death, Mrs. Tadlock and her husband probated the will. The heirs-at-law of Mr. Boyles, who predeceased his wife, filed a petition with the trial court, claiming that Mrs. Tadlock came by her position as sole beneficiary through undue influence and that a confidential relationship existed between the two women. The court dismissed the petition, and the heirs appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Lack of testamentary capacity The heirs argue that the trial court erred in failing to set aside Mrs. Boyles’s will for lack of testamentary capacity at the time of execution. The facts they rely on include that Mrs. Boyles was eighty-five years old, had an arthritic condition in her back and knees, had been characterized as having a less than average level of intelligence, had recently lost her favorite cousin in a four-wheeler accident, and was dealing with the absence and illness of her husband. The test in determining testamentary capacity is the ability of the testator at the time to understand and appreciate the nature and effect of his act, the natural objects or persons to receive his bounty, and their relation to him, and is capable of determining what disposition he desires to make of his property. While it is true that Mrs. Boyles suffered from painful arthritis, physical incapacity does not render one incapable of making a will. Additionally, a testator does not have to have a certain level of intelligence before he can delineate how he wants his assets to be distributed upon his death. Moreover, her attorney testified that he was of the opinion that Mrs. Boyles possessed sufficient intelligence to execute her will. Therefore, the chancellor was not manifestly wrong in finding that Mrs. Boyles possessed testamentary capacity. Issue 2: Post-will evidence The heirs argue that certain testimonial evidence that was proffered at trial and demonstrative evidence stipulated to by all parties should have been considered by the chancellor in the determination of whether a confidential relationship existed. Their reliance on M.R.E. 401 and 404(b) as to the issue of the existence of a confidential relationship is misplaced. As a general matter, character evidence is not admissible in civil cases’ unless character is one of the issues in the case. When determining whether a confidential relationship exists, an individual’s character is irrelevant. Therefore, as the evidence pertained to events that occurred post-execution, and character evidence is irrelevant to a determination of whether a confidential relationship existed, the trial court did not err in excluding the evidence. Issue 3: Confidential relationship The heirs argue that a confidential relationship existed between Mrs. Boyles and Mrs. Tadlock. In order to determine whether such a relationship is present, a court should look to 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 her 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. There was no evidence presented showing that Mrs. Tadlock maintained a joint account with Mrs. Boyles or possessed Mrs. Boyles’s power of attorney at the time of execution of the will. Although Mrs. Boyles was eighty-four years of age at the time she executed the will, her doctor testified that she was in fairly good health. Mrs. Tadlock helped Mrs. Boyles in many aspects of her life, as did others close to Mrs. Boyles. However, based upon the testimony presented at trial, the trial court was not manifestly wrong in finding that a confidential relationship did not exist between the two women. Issue 4: Breach of fiduciary duty In 2000, Mrs. Boyles signed a power of attorney in favor of Mrs. Tadlock. Over the next one and a half years, Mrs. Tadlock used the power of attorney to secure certain loans with Mrs. Boyles’ assets and wrote two checks to “cash” from Mrs. Boyles’ accounts. The heirs argue that these, as well as other actions, constituted a breach of the fiduciary duty accompanying Mrs. Tadlock’s position as Mrs. Boyles’ attorney-in-fact. Under the specific facts of the case, whether Mrs. Tadlock breached her fiduciary duty is moot given the Court’s holding that no confidential relationship was present. Issue 5: Certificates of deposit The heirs argue that as a result of the confidential relationship between Mrs. Boyles and Mrs. Tadlock, the post-will actions of Mrs. Boyles, adding Mrs. Tadlock as a joint holder of several certificates of deposit owned by Mrs. Boyles, should have been set aside by the chancellor. This issue is moot. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
