In re Estate of Holmes


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-01964-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-01964-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-07-2007
Opinion Author: GRAVES, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Wills & estates - Lack of testamentary capacity - Undue influence
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Easley, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-29-2005
Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
Judge: William Joseph Lutz
Disposition: The Madison County Chancery Court found that the subject will was valid and that it was not a product of undue influence.
Case Number: 2003-0380

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: OLLIE HOLMES-PICKETT, ET AL.




SORIE S. TARAWALLY JOHNNY CLYDE PARKER



 

Appellee: BERTHA HOLMES-PRICE, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF LELA W. HOLMES, ET AL. STANLEY FRANK STATER, III VERNON H. CHADWICK  

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 - Undue influence

Summary of the Facts: Ollie Holmes Pickett and numerous other children and grandchildren of Lela Holmes filed a caveat against probate of Lela’s last will and testament on the grounds of undue influence by Bertha Holmes-Price and lack of testamentary capacity. The court found that the will was valid and that it was not a product of undue influence. Pickett appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: In determining whether a confidential relationship exists, the court considers 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. In this case, there are no disinterested witnesses or other evidence to reflect Lela’s intent to change her will, create two trusts and exclude thirteen grandchildren. With the exception of the two witnesses to the execution of the will, all of the other witnesses called to testify at trial have an interest in the will. The evidence contained in the record fails to clearly establish that Lela was the initiating party in seeking preparation of a new will. However, there is clear evidence that Bertha played a major role in initiating the preparation of the will. The record indicates that the attorney was paid by Bertha and her siblings. The record indicates that Bertha decided that each person who was going to receive land from Lela should pay $1,000 each to be used for expenses in surveying the land, preparing the deeds, etc. Further, only Bertha and her siblings made contributions. The different letters to various people about different meetings on different days about different aspects of Lela’s estate and the manner in which at least one of the witnesses was obtained certainly indicates a level of secrecy or the intent to keep certain information from some individuals. The record fails to prove that Lela was aware of her total assets and their general value. There is nothing in the record to establish that Lela knew the natural inheritors of her bounty at the time she executed the new will or how the changes would affect her prior will. Bertha had power of attorney and was in full control of Lela’s finances. The evidence contained in the record clearly indicates that Bertha controlled Lela’s finances and business, that Lela was very dependent on Bertha and her siblings, and that Lela would likely be very susceptible to Bertha’s influence. The record in this matter clearly indicates that Lela never intended to exclude her other grandchildren. Although the attorney testified that he confirmed with Lela the information that Bertha provided to him, there is nothing in the record to establish that he ever met with or talked to Lela privately about the will until the day it was executed. There is overwhelming evidence that the attorney communicated almost exclusively with Bertha and that Bertha provided all of the specifics for the will/trust. Given this evidence, Bertha failed to overcome the presumption of undue influence by clear and convincing evidence.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court