Johnson v. Dodson, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01139-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-01139-SCT ; 2003-CT-01139-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-23-2004 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Testamentary capacity - Undue influence Judge(s) Concurring: Irving, Chandler, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Dissenting Author : Bridges, P.J. Dissent Joined By : King, C.J., Myers and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-30-2002 Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court Judge: Dennis M. Baker Disposition: THE DECEDENT HAD TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY AND WAS NOT THE SUBJECT OF UNDUE INFLUENCE; THEREFORE, THE WILL DATED MARCH 29, 1995 IS THE VALID LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE DECEDENT. Case Number: 97-2-243 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In Re: Estate of Isaac Crutcher, Deceased: Rebecca C. Johnson |
JOHN THOMAS LAMAR |
||
| Appellee: | Dorothy Dodson, Carolyn Newsom, Ozell Newsom, Diane Mason, Issac Dodson and Wallace Anderson | J. KEITH TREADWAY |
|
|
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 - Testamentary capacity - Undue influence |
| Summary of the Facts: | The chancellor found that Isaac Crutcher, the decedent, had testamentary capacity to make a will both on November 25, 1991 and on March 29, 1995. The chancellor also found that the decedent was not the subject of any undue influence, and, therefore, the will dated March 29, 1995, was the valid last will and testament of the decedent. The proponents of the will are the decedent's great nieces Carolyn Newsom, the executrix, and Diane Mason Jones, and great nephew Isaac Dodson, all of whom are beneficiaries named in the will. The contestant, Rebecca Johnson, sister of the decedent, appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Testamentary capacity Johnson argues that the chancellor erred in finding that Isaac Crutcher had testamentary capacity when he executed both of his wills. The test of one's capacity to execute a will is the ability of the testator at the time to understand and appreciate the nature and effect of his act, the natural objects or persons to receive his bounty, and their relation to him, and is capable of determining what disposition he desires to make of his property. The chancellor heard testimony from family members as to Isaac Crutcher's mental capacity. The witnesses, most of whom are possible beneficiaries and have a stake in the outcome of the trial, gave conflicting accounts of Crutcher's mental state both before and after his strokes. Testamentary capacity is to be tested as of the date of the execution of the will. Since the proponents offered no other proof that Crutcher could not have signed his name prior to or on November 25, 1991, and since they could not prove that Crutcher was incapable of understanding the nature of the act, the persons receiving the bounty, and the disposition of his gift, the chancellor was correct, in lieu of the proof submitted, that Crutcher had the mental capacity to create a will on that date. With regard to the second will, though there is significant evidence that Isaac Crutcher was physically impaired, there is no evidence here that he was mentally incapable of making a will on March 29, 1995. Issue 2: Undue influence Johnson argues that Crutcher was unduly influenced by Carolyn and Ozell Newsom when he executed both wills in question. A presumption of undue influence is not raised merely because a beneficiary occupies a confidential relationship with the testator; something more is required, such as active participation by the beneficiary in the procurement, preparation or execution of the will or mental infirmity of the testator. Clearly, there was a confidential relationship between Carolyn and Crutcher as she helped him with his daily living and his financial affairs. In order for Carolyn to overcome this presumption of undue influence, the evidence must have shown by clear and convincing evidence that she exhibited good faith in the fiduciary relationship with Crutcher; Crutcher acted with knowledge and deliberation when he executed the wills; and Crutcher exhibited independent consent and action. There was no testimony that Carolyn mishandled any of Crutcher's finances. Both wills were drafted at the attorney's office, away from Carolyn. Both executions were observed by the requisite number of disinterested witnesses. It appears from the wills that Crutcher understood the nature of his property and who would be the beneficiaries. Crutcher knew how much property he owned and bequeathed specific items to members of his family, such as a rifle and a riding lawn mower. The attorney stated that the only persons in the room while he was drafting the will were himself and Crutcher. There was no evidence that Carolyn abused her relationship with Crutcher by exerting dominance over him. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
