New v. Booker, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00153-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-14-2003 Opinion Author: Bridges, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Testamentary capacity - Confidential relationship - Undue influence - Admission of testimony Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-01-2001 Appealed from: Attala County Chancery Court Judge: Edward C. Prisock Disposition: IN WILL CONTEST, CHANCELLOR HELD THAT TESTATOR HAD TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY AND THAT THE TESTATOR DID NOT HOLD A CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH APPELLEES. Case Number: 2000-242 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In the Matter of the Last Will and Testament of Guy Bascombe Garrett, Jr., Deceased: Catherine Adair Noah New |
CHARLES J. SWAYZE |
||
| Appellee: | George M. Booker and Lamar Townsend, Individually and as Co-Executors | JOHN MICHAEL GILMORE |
|
|
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 - Confidential relationship - Undue influence - Admission of testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | When Guy Garrett, Jr. was admitted to probate, Catherine Adair Noah New initiated a will contest alleging that the testator did not have testamentary capacity or, in the alternative, that the testator was unduly influenced. The chancellor found for the co-executors of the estate, George Booker and Lamar Townsend. New appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Testamentary capacity New argues that the court erred in finding that Garrett had the requisite testamentary capacity to execute a will. The test used to determine testamentary capacity includes whether the testatrix had the ability at the time of the will to understand and appreciate the effects of her act; whether the testatrix had the ability at the time of the will to understand the natural objects or persons to receive her bounty and their relation to her; and whether the testatrix was capable of determining at the time of the will what disposition she desired to make of her property. Although Garrett was suffering from cancer and was taking medication, his attorney testified that Garrett did have capacity to execute his will and showed no signs of incapacitation. The attorney also testified that Garrett was able to discuss his relatives and appeared to be just as competent on the day of execution as he had been during their prior meetings. Although Garrett did not specifically name all of the property that he owned in the will, the will contained a residual clause that distributed any unnamed property. Given these factors, the chancellor's finding that Garrett had testamentary capacity was proper. Issue 2: Undue influence New argues that there was a confidential relationship between Garrett and Booker and also between Garrett and Townsend. Whenever there is a relation between two people in which one person is in a position to exercise a dominant influence upon the other because of the latter's dependency upon the former, arising either from weakness of mind or body, or through trust, the relationship is considered fiduciary in character. Garrett was a single man with no children or immediate family. He had known Booker for approximately twenty years prior to his death and Townsend for about forty years. Neither Booker nor Townsend appeared to have had any dominant relationship over Garrett. His finances were not controlled or assisted by either Booker or Townsend, and they did nothing for him beyond what any friend of twenty years would do. Even though Garrett had a close relationship with Booker and Townsend, the chancellor was correct in finding the will was not a product of undue influence. Issue 3: Admission of testimony New argues that the chancellor erred in admitting certain testimony of the attorney who drafted the will. The attorney who drafted Garrett's will and was originally the attorney for the Garrett estate stopped representing the Garrett estate because of a possible conflict. Because the attorney was a party to this will contest and represented himself, he had the right to be present in the courtroom during the entire process as a party defendant. In addition, his testimony was crucial to the case since he was the scrivener of the will and was present on the critical day of the will’s execution. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
