In re the Last Will and Testament and Estate of Cooper
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01253-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-01253-COA ; 2010-CT-01253-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-21-2011 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Antenuptial agreement - Waiver of right to contest a will Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-30-2010 Appealed from: Adams County Chancery Court Judge: Vincent Davis Disposition: GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST JANICE C. COOPER BY ENFORCING ANTENUPTIAL AGREEMENT AND DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE HER CONTEST OF WESLEY’S WILL, PETITION TO RENOUNCE THE WILL, AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEED Case Number: 2008-585 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Janice C. Cooper |
RICK D. PATT |
|
|
| Appellee: | Carolyn C. Guido | W. BRUCE LEWIS | ||
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 - Antenuptial agreement - Waiver of right to contest a will |
| Summary of the Facts: | On the morning of their wedding, Janice and J. Wesley Cooper entered into an antenuptial agreement. Sometime during the marriage, the couple separated; and in 2007, Wesley executed a new will that devised all of his property to his daughters, Carolyn and Deborah. Then, in 2008, Wesley executed a deed, conveying ownership of his home to Carolyn and Deborah. Shortly thereafter, Wesley died. Following Wesley’s death, Carolyn filed a petition to probate Wesley’s will. The chancellor entered a judgment admitting the will to probate and ordered the issuance of the letters testamentary to Carolyn. Janice then filed a petition contesting the will, wherein she claimed, among other things, that Wesley’s will was the result of Carolyn and Deborah’s undue influence and was executed by Wesley at a time when he was of unsound mind. Carolyn responded by seeking a dismissal of Janice’s petition due to a no-contest provision in the antenuptial agreement signed by Janice and Wesley and requesting that because Janice had waived all of her homestead rights in the home upon entering into the antenuptial agreement, the home be sold and the proceeds be divided as follows: one-half to Janice, one-fourth to Carolyn, and one-fourth to Deborah. Janice then filed a “Renunciation of Will,” a “Motion to Void Deed of Gift,” and a motion to strike the antenuptial agreement. Carolyn moved for summary judgment which the court granted. Janice appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Janice argues that the chancellor erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Carolyn after finding that the antenuptial agreement was a valid and enforceable contract which precluded her challenge of the will and deed executed by Wesley. Janice asserts that the antenuptial agreement is procedurally unconscionable since the facts are clear that she entered into the antenuptial agreement while under duress and without the benefit of or opportunity to obtain proper legal counsel. She also argues that the agreement constitutes an invalid contract of adhesion drafted unilaterally by Wesley, the dominant party, and then presented to her, the weaker party, on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis without a real opportunity to bargain about its terms. An antenuptial agreement is enforceable just as any other contract. The law requires antenuptial agreements to be fair in the execution, and the law imposes a duty of disclosure upon the parties entering into these agreements. The right to contest a will may be contracted away, as long as the terms of the contract are clear as to its purpose and intent, and sufficient consideration is present. The record shows, contrary to Janice’s claims, that Janice voluntarily entered into an unambiguous, binding antenuptial agreement where she waived, released, and relinquished any right or claim to Wesley’s estate and waived the right to take in contravention of the terms of Wesley’s will or any other disposition of property made by Wesley during his lifetime. Therefore, the chancellor did not err in entering summary judgment in favor of Carolyn. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
