In re Estate of Finley v. Finley
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01289-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01289-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-23-2010 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Burden of proof - Lack of testamentary capacity - Undue influence Judge(s) Concurring: Myers, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J., with separate written opinion Dissent Joined By : King, C.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-30-2008 Appealed from: PERRY COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: James H.C. Thomas, Jr. Disposition: DENIED CHALLENGE TO WILL AND DEEDS Case Number: 2005-0032-P-TH |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF BOBBY
RAY FINLEY, DECEASED, KENNETH RAY
FINLEY AND SANDRA FINLEY MCCARDLE |
DONALD WAYNE MEDLEY |
|
|
| Appellee: | JESSIE DARYL FINLEY | ROBIN L. ROBERTS, JOEL LAVELLE BLACKLEDGE | ||
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 - Burden of proof - Lack of testamentary capacity - Undue influence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Bobby Ray Finley was preceded in death by his wife, Avis Finley, and survived by Kenneth Ray Finley and Sandra Finley McCardle, his natural son and daughter, and Jessie Daryl Finley, who is also the natural son of Bobby Ray. In 1984, Bobby Ray and Avis executed similar wills, leaving their respective estates to each other or to the three children equally should they not survive each other. Avis was killed in an automobile accident in April 2001, leaving her estate to Bobby Ray. After Avis’s death, Jessie quit his job as a trucker, and with his wife, Rachel, Jessie moved in with Bobby Ray to help take care of him. Jessie and Rachel also helped run the family chicken-house operation, from which they produced eggs for Sanderson Farms. In August 2001, after Avis’s death, Bobby Ray executed a deed to 70.95 acres, the family home, and the chicken houses to Jessie, reserving unto himself a life estate. In November 2001, Bobby Ray deeded 57.45 acres to Jessie and Kenneth, again reserving a life estate for himself. In December 2001, Bobby Ray executed an additional deed to this property, granting a full interest in the land to Kenneth. The December 2001 deed, however, did not contain the reservation of a life estate. When Bobby Ray later learned that he had mistakenly failed to retain a life estate in the land, requested that Kenneth grant him a life estate in the land, but Kenneth refused. Eventually, Kenneth acquiesced and granted a life estate in the property back to his father. In 2002, Bobby Ray rewrote his last will and testament. In his final will, Bobby Ray left the 57.45 acres to Kenneth; $20,000 to Sandra; and 2.60 acres, his home, all contents of his home, 75.6 acres of land, all of the chicken houses and equipment on the farm to Jessie. Bobby Ray also left $5,000 in a trust for his granddaughter, Danielle Gilmore, and $10,000 to his sister, Braddis Finley Crocker, and her husband. Kenneth and Sandra filed suit against Jessie, alleging that Bobby Ray’s will, in which he left the bulk of his estate to Jessie, was the result of undue influence. The Contestants also asserted that Bobby Ray lacked the requisite testamentary capacity necessary to execute a will. The chancellor found that Bobby Ray possessed the mental competency to execute a will in 2002. The chancellor also found that the record did not support a finding of undue influence. The Contestants appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Burden of proof The Contestants argue that the chancellor erred by stating in the judgment that the burden of proof shifts to the Contestants to establish the lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence after the proponent has made his prima facie case as to the validity of the will. They argue that the burden of proof at trial remains upon the proponent, Jessie, to prove the validity of the will. However, in reading the chancellor’s entire judgment, it is apparent that he understood the burdens and applied them faithfully. Issue 2: Undue influence The Contestants argue that the chancellor erred by finding that no undue influence existed in the creation of Bobby Ray’s will and deeds to his land. In an action for a will contest, if a confidential relationship exists, a presumption of undue influence arises only when there has been an abuse of that confidential relationship. However, with inter vivos gifts, if a confidential relationship exists, there is an automatic presumption of undue influence even without abuse of the confidential relationship. Such gifts are presumptively invalid. In establishing the validity of an inter vivos gift or testamentary gift, factors to consider in determining whether a confidential relationship exists include 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. If a confidential relationship exists between Bobby Ray and Jessie, the inter vivos gift – the deeds to the Bobby Ray’s land – is presumptively invalid. If a confidential relationship is established, and the Contestants show an abuse of that confidential relationship by Jessie, the testamentary gifts, which include Bobby Ray’s land and money, are also presumptively invalid due to undue influence. Jessie must rebut the presumptions of undue influence relating to the inter vivos gift and testamentary gifts by clear and convincing evidence. To overcome the presumption of undue influence, the proponent of the will or gift must show good faith on the part of the grantee/beneficiary; grantor’s/testator’s full knowledge and deliberation of his actions and their consequences; and independent consent and action by the grantor/testator. Here, the Contestants have failed to establish that a confidential relationship existed. Several witnesses testified that although Bobby Ray was physically challenged, he was a shrewd businessman, was able to negotiate contracts, and was a good manager of the chicken farm. Several witnesses testified that Bobby Ray did not solely depend upon Jessie and Rachel. Bobby Ray was capable of driving himself and often traveled to his camp in Waynesboro. Two witnesses testified that Bobby Ray controlled his medication, keeping it near him in a cigar box and administering the medications himself. Several witnesses discussed Bobby Ray’s mental capacity, stating that he was not easily influenced, preferred to make up his own mind about things, and always did what he felt was right. The court-appointed accountant testified that there was no misuse of business funds by Jessie. Testimony showed that Bobby Ray changed his will because he was disappointed with Kenneth and Sandra. Because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to show that a confidential relationship existed, it is not necessary to determine whether Bobby Ray was unduly influenced. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
