Hensley, et al. v. Harris
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00609-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00609-SCT ; 2002-CT-00609-SCT ; 2002-CA-00609-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-02-2003 Opinion Author: King, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Duty of attesting witnesses - Section 91-5-1 - Undue influence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-06-2002 Appealed from: Benton County Chancery Court Judge: Glenn Alderson Disposition: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED AS TO THE PLAINTIFFS' PETITION TO VOID THE WILL Case Number: 2000-64 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Norma Hensley, Geraldine Clayton and Henry Harris |
B. SEAN AKINS |
||
| Appellee: | Ricky Harris, Individually, and as Executor of the Estate of Cecil Harris, and David L. Harris, Individually | ROBERT D. CHILDERS WALTER PRICE ELLIOTT |
|
|
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 - Duty of attesting witnesses - Section 91-5-1 - Undue influence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cecil Harris had five children with his wife, Learline Harris: Ricky Harris, William Harris, Cecil Harris, Norma Harris Hensley and Geraldine Harris Clayton. Cecil's relationship with his family was somewhat rocky. When he died, he left a will bequeathing his property to Ricky. Three of the other children filed a petition to have the will declared void. The court found that the will was valid, and the appellants appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Witnessing of will The appellants argue that the person preparing the will be an attorney or that either or both of the witnesses must question the testator extensively about his motivations or intentions in preparing the will. Under section 91-5-1, it is the duty of attesting witnesses to observe and see that the will was executed by the testator and that he had the capacity to execute the will. Here, one of the witnesses helped prepare the will, had known Harris for more than twenty-five years, was fully aware of his motives for naming the beneficiary of his estate, and could testify as to his capacity. The second witness was able to provide credible testimony that the testator signed what was represented to be his will and that he seemed fully capable of executing this will. Therefore, the will was properly executed according to statute. Issue 2: Undue influence The appellants argue that Ricky, through fraud and undue influence, misled his father into leaving him all of his money and property. Although Ricky did begin to see more of his father around the time that the will was executed, there is no direct evidence placing Ricky at either meeting to prepare the will, and the testimony of the witness who prepared the will clearly stated that it was the negative influences of the appellants which motivated Harris to create the will. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
