In re Estate of Rutland v. Rutland
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01671-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-08-2009 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART; REMANDED: 12/08/2009; The judgment of the Chancery Court of Lawrence County is reversed, and judgment is rendered finding that the 2002 will is valid and shall be admitted to probate. The judgment is affirmed on cross-appeal. This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Validity of will - Section 91-5-1 - Testamentary capacity - Undue influence - Confidential relationship Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): IRVING, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-04-2008 Appealed from: Lawrence County Chancery Court Judge: J. Larry Buffington Disposition: FOUND THAT THE TESTATOR LACKED TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY, THAT A PREVIOUS WILL WAS VOID DUE TO FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIPS, AND THAT THE ESTATE WOULD PROCEED AS AN INTESTATE ESTATE Case Number: 2005-0036 |
|
| Note: | The judgment of the Chancery Court of Lawrence County is reversed, and judgment is rendered finding that the 2002 will is valid and shall be admitted to probate. The judgment is affirmed on cross-appeal. This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE AND LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF WILLIE RAY
RUTLAND, DIANE RUTLAND NATIONS,
GREGORY RUTLAND, PEGGY RUTLAND JONES AND CALVIN RUTLAND |
THOMAS M. MURPHREE,
MALCOLM T. ROGERS,
JOSEPH BILBO MOFFETT |
|
|
| Appellee: | RICKIE DALE RUTLAND AND TODD RUTLAND | RAY T. PRICE | ||
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 - Validity of will - Section 91-5-1 - Testamentary capacity - Undue influence - Confidential relationship |
| Summary of the Facts: | When Willie Rutland died, his “double first” cousin William Calvin Rutland (Calvin) offered a 2002 will for probate that named him as executor and Diane Rutland Nations, Willie Ray’s niece, as sole beneficiary. Rickie Dale Rutland and Todd Rutland, nephews of Willie Ray, filed a petition to set aside the 2002 will. Rickie and Todd also offered for probate a 1989 will that left Willie Ray’s real property to them. The chancellor set aside both wills and found that the estate should proceed intestate. Calvin, Diane, and her siblings Peggy Rutland Jones and Greg Rutland appeal. Rickie and Todd cross-appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | To make a valid will, section 91-5-1 requires that the testator must have been of sound mind at the time the will was executed. The test of one’s capacity to execute a will 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. The attorney and Calvin, subscribing witnesses to the 2002 will, testified unequivocally that Willie Ray possessed the requisite elements of testamentary capacity when the will was executed. The record also contains the affidavit of an attesting witness to the same effect. The proponents of the 2002 will also offered the deposition of Dr. David Smith of the Pinnacle Medical Clinic, who testified that he had treated Willie Ray for a period of years before and after the execution of the 2002 will. Dr. Smith opined, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that on January 18, 2002, Willie Ray was capable of each of the requisite elements of testamentary capacity. While the proponents of the will clearly made a prima facie case, the chancellor found that Willie Ray lacked testamentary capacity to execute the 2002 will. There is nothing sufficient to support the chancellor’s finding that Willie Ray lacked testamentary capacity. Both Rickie and Todd acknowledged that they had not seen Willie Ray for several months prior to the execution of the 2002 will. Testimony regarding capacity from witnesses who have not seen the testator in months will be deemed irrelevant. In addition, overly broad or generalized testimony indicating a lack of capacity will be deemed insufficient where it is contradicted by competent evidence and is obviously based upon the infirmities of advancing age rather than upon any abnormal conduct indicative of mental aberration. Therefore, Rickie’s and Todd’s testimonies, at best, could demonstrate some occasional deficiency in Willie Ray’s long-term memory; such is not sufficient to establish an absence of testamentary capacity. While the chancellor did not expressly find that the 2002 will was a product of Diane’s undue influence, this was an alternative theory offered by the contestants. A presumption of undue influence arises where a confidential relationship exists between the testator and a beneficiary and there is some showing that the beneficiary under the will abused the relationship either by asserting dominance over the testator or by substituting his intent for that of the testator. The record is insufficient to support a finding of undue influence through direct evidence. The question of whether a presumption of undue influence arose requires further examination. Clearly, there was sufficient evidence to find that a confidential relationship existed between Diane and Willie Ray at the time of the execution of the will: Willie Ray suffered from numerous physical ailments; he resided in an assistedliving facility and required assistance to travel; Diane possessed a power of attorney; and she had handled Willie Ray’s finances since October 2001. Assuming that a confidential relationship existed, the contestants must still produce evidence of an abuse of that relationship relating to the execution of the will. In reviewing the record, it is apparent that they failed to meet that burden. Both Todd and Rickie admitted that they knew nothing of the circumstances of the execution of the 2002 will. Diane testified that she had nothing to do with the execution of the 2002 will. The attorney who drafted the will testified that, at the time the will was executed, he “may” have met Diane once. The only testimony that could support a presumption of undue influence is Diane’s admission that she had driven Willie Ray to Rogers’s office once, or possibly twice, some time in 2001. This alone is simply too tenuous and too remote to the execution of the 2002 will to prove an abuse of the confidential relationship sufficient to raise a presumption of undue influence. The chancellor found the 1989 will should be set aside, citing a fiduciary relationship between Willie Ray and Todd and Rickie. On cross-appeal, the nephews argue that this finding was unsupported by the record and legally insufficient to set aside the will. While no testimony or evidence offered at trial could support a finding of a confidential relationship between Rickie or Todd and Willie Ray in 1989, the 1989 will was nonetheless properly set aside because the 2002 will expressly revoked all prior wills. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
