McClendon v. McClendon, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00980-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00980-SCT ; 2002-CT-00980-SCT ; 2002-CT-00980-SCT ; 2002-CT-00980-SCT ; 2002-CA-00980-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-16-2003 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: REVERSED, RENDERED AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Admission of will - Testamentary capacity - Undue influence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-03-2002 Appealed from: Washington County Chancery Court Judge: Ceola James Disposition: JURY VERDICT FOR WILL CONTESTANTS Case Number: 200670 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In the Matter of the Estate of Mary M. Pigg, Deceased: Earl J. McClendon, Individually, and as Executor |
NATHAN P. ADAMS |
||
| Appellee: | David L. McClendon, Hugh I. McClendon, Myrtis M. Doyle and Sharon M. Wheetley | JOHN H. COX |
|
|
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 - Admission of will - Testamentary capacity - Undue influence |
| Summary of the Facts: | When Mary McClendon Pigg died, she left a will bequeathing certain items of personalty to named family members with the remainder of the estate liquidated and distributed in various percentages to her siblings of the half blood, David McClendon, Frank McClendon, Joe McClendon, Sharon McClendon Wheetley, Delores McClendon Long, Annie Bell McClendon Murphy, Myrtis McClendon Doyle, and Earl McClendon and his wife, Juanita. One sibling, Hugh McClendon, was omitted from the specific bequests. After the will was admitted to probate, David McClendon, Hugh McClendon, Myrtis Doyle and Sharon Wheetley filed an objection and contest to probate, claiming lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by Earl McClendon. The jury found in favor of the contestants, and Earl appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of will Earl argues that the chancellor erred by refusing to admit into evidence the probated will in common form, along with the record of probate. A prima facie case of validity is made when the will and its record of probate are admitted into evidence. The contestants then bear the burden of introducing evidence to challenge the will's validity. Although Earl is correct that it was error for the chancellor not to admit this probate record into evidence, the error does not require reversal since the estate was not found to have failed to make its prima facie case. Issue 2: Testamentary capacity Factors the court should use in determining the issue of capacity include whether the testatrix had the ability to understand and appreciate the nature and effect of her actions; whether the testatrix had the ability to recognize the natural objects or persons of her bounty and their relation to her; and whether the testatrix was capable of determining what disposition she desired to make of her property. At the close of their case, the contestants had produced no evidence that Mrs. Pigg failed to have sufficient mental capacity on the date she made her will. The medical records, including an assessment completed just a few hours prior to the execution of the will and another one afterwards indicated that Mrs. Pigg was alert and oriented. In addition, there was no indication that Mrs. Pigg lacked testamentary capacity as reported by the witnesses to the will. Therefore, it was error to give the issue of testamentary capacity to the jury, and the court should have granted the estate’s motion for a directed verdict. Issue 3: Undue influence If a confidential relationship existed between the testatrix and the other party, a presumption that there was undue influence arises which must be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. Here, the contestants did not plead nor seek to prove a confidential relationship between Earl McClendon and Mary Pigg. While those contesting a will need not present sufficient evidence to prove undue influence, the contestants must at least raise sufficient question to cause jurors to conclude that the proponents failed to prove that the will was free of improper influence. From no one contemporaneously involved, as a party in interest, as the attorney, or as a bystander, was there any suggestion that Mrs. Pigg was unaware of what she was doing or that her personal desires had been overwhelmed by someone else. There was not sufficient evidence to make the question of undue influence one for the jury. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
