In re Estate of Pope v. White
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00199-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00199-COA ; 2007-CT-00199-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-20-2008 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Confidential relationship - Presumption of undue influence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-31-2006 Appealed from: NESHOBA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: John Love, Jr. Disposition: JURY FOUND DOCUMENT WAS NOT THE TRUE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF DECEDENT Case Number: 2004-162 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EARSEL RAYBURN POPE, DECEASED: JUANITA SHARP ANDERSON ALLEN POPE |
JAMES A. WILLIAMS |
||
| Appellee: | CATHY WHITE, JUDY O’BERRY AND TERESA WILLIAMSON | WALTON WADE WHITE, TERRY L. JORDAN, STEVEN DETROY SETTLEMIRES |
|
|
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 - Confidential relationship - Presumption of undue influence |
| Summary of the Facts: | The contestants, Cathy White, Judy O’Berry, and Teresa Williamson, are the natural daughters of Earsel Pope. The proponent of the will is Juanita Pope, who was married to Earsel at the time of his death and was named as the sole beneficiary under the purported will. The chancery court entered a judgment in favor of the contestants pursuant to a jury verdict finding that the will was not the true last will and testament of Earsel. Juanita appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Juanita argues that the contestants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was a confidential relationship so as to raise a presumption of undue influence. A presumption of undue influence arises where a confidential relation exists between a testator and a beneficiary under his will, and the beneficiary has been actively concerned in some way with the preparation or execution of it. The factors to be considered in determining whether a confidential relationship exists are 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 their 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. Here, there is substantial evidence to support a finding that a confidential relationship existed between Juanita and Earsel. In the two months preceding the will’s execution, Juanita cared for, became romantically involved with, and married Earsel, an individual of advanced age and declining physical and mental health, which rendered him dependent on the care of others. Moreover, the evidence clearly established that Juanita actively participated in the will’s preparation. Juanita also argues that she presented evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of undue influence. Once a presumption of undue influence is established, the burden of proof shifts to the beneficiary to rebut the presumption with clear and convincing evidence of good faith on the part of the grantee/beneficiary; grantor's full knowledge and deliberation of his actions and their consequences; and advice of a competent person, disconnected from the grantee and devoted wholly to the grantor/testator's interest. The substantial weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that Juanita did not act in good faith. Juanita initiated the will’s procurement; she contacted the attorney and set an appointment to discuss preparing a will for Earsel. Further, Juanita locked the will in a safe in her own house. Earsel suffered from leukemia, Alzheimer’s, and dementia, among other things. The evidence suggests that Juanita exercised a degree of control over Earsel’s finances. Earsel was clearly dependant on Juanita, and the testimony suggests that he was susceptible to her influence. Juanita’s participation in procuring the will weighs against a finding that Earsel exercised independent consent and action. Thus, the jury’s verdict is supported by sufficient evidence in the record. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
