Noblin v. Burgess
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01425-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01425-COA ; 2008-CA-01425-COA ; 2008-CT-01425-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-08-2010 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Undue influence - Testamentary capacity - Peremptory instruction Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-27-2008 Appealed from: SMITH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Robert G. Evans Disposition: WILL CONTEST REJECTED AND WILL UPHELD AS VALID Case Number: 2007-130 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Ronnie E. Noblin, Henry C. Noblin, Jr., Thomas C. Noblin, Robbie Noblin, Nell Noblin Johnson, Diane Boykin and Joyce Miller |
DAVID GARNER, LEWIS W. BELL, WILLIAM F. GOODMAN, JR., EUGENE COURSEY TULLOS |
|
|
| Appellee: | Sammy Burgess and Sheila McDill, Co-Executors of the Last Will and Testament of Robert H. Noblin and Individually as Sole Devisees and Beneficiaries | MARK K. TULLOS | ||
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 - Testamentary capacity - Peremptory instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Robert Noblin executed his last will and testament only hours before his death. The proponents of the will and the sole beneficiaries under it, Sammy Burgess and Sheila McDill, initiated probate proceedings in Smith County. Noblin’s numerous heirs at law contested the will, asserting it was the product of undue influence. The trial court granted the contestants’ request for a jury trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the proponents. The contestants appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Undue influence The contestants argue that the proponents presented insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of undue influence, which they allege arose by virtue of a confidential relationship. A presumption of undue influence arises where a confidential relationship existed between the testator and a beneficiary, and the beneficiary in the confidential relationship was actively involved in some way with preparing or executing the will. A confidential relationship is present where one person is in a position to exercise dominant influence upon the other because of the latter’s dependency on the former arising either from weakness of mind or body, or through trust. In order to overcome the presumption of undue influence, the proponents must show by clear and convincing evidence the beneficiary acted in good faith; the testator had full knowledge and deliberation in executing the will; and the testator exhibited independent consent and action. The contestants produced no evidence that Burgess or McDill influenced Noblin’s decision to make a will or suggested the terms of the will. In fact, the evidence points to the contrary. The contestants offered no evidence to show the execution was in any way concealed from the view of the attesting witnesses or done in a secretive manner. At least eight witnesses testified in support of the fact that Noblin was an extraordinarily independent person. Several of the contestants even testified to this fact. Although there is no specific proof of what Noblin knew of his total assets, the testimony of Burgess and McDill supports that Noblin took care of his own finances. The evidence points to the fact that Noblin exercised his own independent consent and action with regard to the making of the will and its terms. Given the circumstances, the trial court did not err in refusing to hold the presumption of undue influence could not be overcome as a matter of law and submitting the issue to the jury. Issue 2: Testamentary capacity The contestants argue reasonable minds could differ over the question of whether the testator had capacity and that this issue should have been submitted to the jury. For testamentary capacity to be present, the testator must be of sound and disposing mind at the time of the will’s execution. At that time, the testator must understand and appreciate the nature and effect of his act of making a will, the natural objects or persons to receive his bounty and their relation to him, and be able to determine what disposition he desires to make of his property. Here, only the proponents presented probative evidence of testamentary capacity at the precise time the will was executed. Testimony of subscribing witnesses is entitled to greater weight than the testimony of witnesses who were not present at the time of the will’s execution or did not see the testator on the day of the will’s execution. Here, the only subscribing witness who testified maintained that Noblin had capacity at the critical time he executed the will. Her testimony is supported by other witnesses as well, including McDill, who testified that Noblin put on his glasses and read the will before signing it. Noblin’s will reflected a natural disposition of his property to his stepson and stepdaughter, whom the record indicates he considered to be his own children, though he never adopted them. The contestants’ proof is insufficient to create a jury issue about the testator’s capacity to make a will at the critical time of execution. Issue 3: Peremptory instruction The contestants argue the instructions given by the trial judge impermissibly permitted the jury to determine whether a confidential relationship existed, when, they contend, a confidential relationship was established as a matter of law. A confidential relationship is one where a fiduciary relation exists as a fact, in which there is a confidence reposed on one side and the resulting superiority and influence on the other. The contestants must show that a confidential relationship existed at the time the will was executed by clear and convincing evidence. If reasonable minds can differ over the existence of a confidential relationship, the question is one for the jury. The relationship between Noblin and his stepchildren was in essence a parent/child relationship. No less than eight witnesses, including three of the contestants, testified to Noblin’s independent nature. Much of this testimony centered on his insusceptibility to be influenced by others in his decision making and his practice of tending to his own business and financial affairs. Although doctor’s and nurse’s notes tended to show Noblin’s mental weakness soon before the will’s execution, the subscribing witness’s testimony certainly supported the opposite at the critical time of the will’s execution. And her testimony was uncontradicted on this point. Furthermore, the contestants presented no evidence that Noblin maintained any joint account with another person or that there existed any power of attorney between him and another person. Under these facts, the contestants failed to establish the existence of a confidential relationship by clear and convincing evidence as a matter of law. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
