Estate of Thornton v. Thornton
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-02167-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-28-2006 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Confidential relationship - Undue influence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-01-2004 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: Stuart Robinson Disposition: CHANCERY COURT ENTERED FINAL JUDGMENT DISCHARGING CO-EXECUTORS Case Number: P-1998-53 R/1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In the Matter of the Estate of Tetta Green Thornton, Deceased: Johnny Thornton |
PERCY STANFIELD, BEVERLY D. POOLE |
||
| Appellee: | Samuel Thornton | JOHN JUSTIN KING, JOHN R. REEVES |
|
|
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 - Confidential relationship - Undue influence |
| Summary of the Facts: | The will of Tetta Green Thornton was offered for probate. Her estate was being administered in accordance with her will, dated February 9, 1995, which provided that her estate was to be divided equally among her four living children, when a subsequently executed will was discovered. The subsequent will left forty acres of real property, nearly all of Tetta’s estate, to her grandson Samuel Thornton. The second will was offered and accepted for probate. Tetta’s son, Johnny Thornton, appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | At the hearing on Samuel’s motion to have the subsequent will probated, only Samuel and the attorney that prepared Tetta’s will testified as to the events surrounding the execution of the subsequent will, and both witnesses’ testimony supported a finding that the will in question was valid. In examining the factors to be considered in determining the existence of undue influence, the testimony revealed that Tetta was taken care of by others, primarily, her daughter Ethel. However, no one alleged that Ethel unduly influenced her mother to make the will. Samuel testified that he had a close relationship with his grandmother; he talked to her on the phone and visited whenever he came to Raymond. However, Samuel has lived in Virginia since the late 1980s. Ethel provided Tetta with transportation, but again, Ethel was not accused of undue influence. No evidence was presented to establish whether Tetta maintained a joint bank account with anyone. The testimony revealed that Tetta’s physical health was compromised due to a stroke and that she was practically blind due to glaucoma. However, the testimony revealed that her mental state was unimpaired. Tetta was seventy-eight years old at the time she executed the second will. Finally, no evidence was presented to establish that Tetta had designated a power of attorney. Since the record of the hearing to determine the validity of Tetta’s second will does not support a finding of a confidential relationship between Tetta and Samuel, the chancellor was not manifestly wrong in finding that no undue influence existed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
