Biddle v. Biddle
| Docket Number | 2021-CP-00513-SCT |
| Decision Date | 29 June 2023 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF FREDERICK ADAMS BIDDLE, DECEASED: RICHARD BRIAN BIDDLE AND BRIAN BAINES BIDDLE v. DIANNE BIDDLE |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
BEFORE RANDOLPH, C.J., ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
¶1. Richard Biddle (Richard) and Brian Biddle (Brian) question whether the Chancery Court of Tishomingo County had jurisdiction over their father's estate. Brian and Richard also appeal the chancery court's finding that there was no evidence of undue influence by their stepmother. This Court finds that venue and jurisdiction are proper and that no evidence of undue influence was presented. Thus this Court affirms the chancery court's decision.
¶2. Frederick Adams Biddle (Rick) died on April 27, 2017 in his Florence, Alabama home. His surviving heirs-at-law were his wife of more than twenty-seven years, Dianne Biddle, and his two sons by a previous marriage, Brian and Richard. Rick left behind a large estate, including property in both Tishomingo County, Mississippi, and Lauderdale County, Alabama.
¶3. Prior to his death, in early 2016, Rick hired attorney R.H. Burress, in Iuka, Mississippi, to revise his will. The revision included changing the property to be inherited by Nellie Biddle, Brian's daughter and Rick's only grandchild, from a direct inheritance to a trust. In late 2016, Rick additionally revised the bequest to Brian from $50,000 to $1.
¶4. The revised will was given to Rick on March 7, 2017. On March 10, 2017, Rick took the will to his long-time accountant, Stanley Huffaker, in Lauderdale, Alabama. There, Rick signed and published the will, which was witnessed by Stanley Huffaker and Myra Lovell, and notarized by Dianne Rickman. After they scanned a copy of the will into their records, Rick took the original will back to his home in Florence, Alabama. A few days later, Dianne returned the will to Burress's office. This will left $1 to Brian, $50,000 to Richard, and $400,000 and land to Dianne. Excluding some other specific bequests, the remainder of Rick's assets, including his Alabama home and a radio station he owned, Biddle &Sons, were left to Nellie's trust.
¶5. During this time, Rick was suffering from pancreatic cancer. After surgery at the University of Alabama at Birmingham hospital, Rick returned to his Alabama home where he received hospice care, including morphine. After his death, Dianne petitioned the Tishomingo County Chancery Court to probate Rick's estate. Dianne was appointed executrix in May 2017.
¶6. Brian and Richard contested the will and asked the court to discharge Dianne as the executrix. They asserted that Dianne used undue influence over Rick and that the circumstances surrounding the creation and execution of his will were suspicious. Over the next few years, while the case was pending, Rick's property was distributed, including the sale of his Alabama home and the radio station, with the proceeds going to Nellie's trust.
¶7. In January 2020, Dianne filed a motion for summary judgment. Brian and Richard opposed, asserting "(1) the absence of original will; (2) alteration of original will; (3) lack of testamentary capacity; (4) . . . undue influence; and (5) flaws in the execution" of the will. The chancery court granted summary judgment in Dianne's favor. Brian and Richard appealed to this Court the question of jurisdiction and the grounds of undue influence.
¶8. "Jurisdictional issues are reviewed by this Court de novo." Jones v. Billy, 798 So.2d 1238, 1239 (Miss. 2001) (citing Harrison v. Boyd Miss., Inc., 700 So.2d 247, 248 (Miss. 1997)).
¶9. Rick's will was probated in the Tishomingo County Chancery Court as the last will and testament of a Mississippi resident. Brian and Richard filed their petition contesting Rick's will in Tishomingo County. They assert that Alabama, not Mississippi, would be the proper jurisdiction and venue of the estate. The question of Rick's domicile was raised for the first time in Richard's response to the summary judgment motion. This response was submitted March 2, 2020, two years after the first petition for probate and Brian and Richard's response.
¶10. "Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine cases in the general class to which the particular case belongs." Kelly v. Cuevas (In re Est. of Kelly), 951 So.2d 543, 548 (Miss. 2007) (citing In re Will of Case v. Case, 246 Miss. 750, 758, 150 So.2d 148 (1963)). Subject matter jurisdiction questions may be raised at any time or sua sponte. McQuirter v. Archie, 311 So.3d 1147, 1151 (Miss. 2020) (quoting Common Cause of Miss. v. Smith, 548 So.2d 412, 414 (Miss. 1989)). The chancery court has subject matter jurisdiction over probate and estate matters or "[m]atters testamentary and of administration[.]" Miss. Const. art. 6, § 159(c).
¶11. Brian and Richard rely on Mississippi Code Section 91-7-1, which clearly states that venue is appropriate where the testator "had a fixed place of residence" or was domiciled. Miss. Code. Ann. § 91-7-1 (Rev. 2021). Questions of venue and jurisdiction must be raised in a timely manner or waived. Belk v. State Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 473 So.2d 447, 451 (Miss. 1985); Jones v. Chandler, 592 So.2d 966, 970 (Miss. 1991). Although Rick's domiciliary status could have been challenged by Brian and Richard, it was not, and it is now time-barred, Belk, 473 So.2d at 451; Jones, 592 So.2d at 970. Jurisdiction and venue were therefore proper.
¶12. In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this Court conducts a de novo review. Karpinsky v. Am. Nat'l Ins. Co., 109 So.3d 84, 88 (Miss. 2013). Summary Judgment is appropriate when the movant shows that "(1) no genuine issue of material fact exists, and (2) on the basis of the facts established, he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Palmer v. Biloxi Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 564 So.2d 1346, 1355 (Miss. 1990)). The evidence is to be viewed "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party[,]" and, while "given the benefit of every reasonable doubt," the nonmovant may not rest upon mere allegations or denials. Moss v. Batesville Casket Co., 935 So.2d 393, 398-99 (Miss. 2006); Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
¶13. In considering summary judgment motions, the trial court does not try the issues, it only determines if there are issues to be tried. Brown v. Credit Ctr., Inc., 444 So.2d 358, 362 (Miss. 1983) (citing Miss. R. Civ. P. 56). The trial court must review carefully all of the evidentiary matters before it, including "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any[.]" Karpinsky, 109 So.3d at 88 (internal quotation mark omitted) (citing Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).
¶14. Appellees, as proponents of the will, have the burden of proving the will throughout. They meet this burden by showing the will was duly executed and admitted to probate. When the will is admitted to probate, proponents put on prima facie evidence that the testator had testamentary capacity and further that no undue influence was placed upon him. The burden of going forward then shifts to contestant, who must overcome the presumption raised by proponents that testator had testamentary capacity, (and, therefore, that the testator's execution of the will was a free and voluntary act).
When the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure come into play within a situation involving a contest to will, where movants for summary judgment (appellees) have shown there is no genuine issue of material fact vis-a-vis probate of the will, contestant, as the adverse party, . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."
Gallagher v. Warden (In re Will of Launius), 507 So.2d 27, 29 (Miss. 1987) (citations omitted).
A. Presumption of Undue Influence Due to Beneficiary Involvement, Dominance, or Substitution of Will
¶15. Mississippi Code Section 91-7-33 states that "[a foreign] will may be contested as the original might have been if it had been executed in this state, or the original will may be proven and admitted to record here." Miss. Code. Ann. § 91-7-33 (Rev. 2021) (emphasis added). As such, there Woodville v. Pizzati, 119 Miss. 442, 81 So. 127, 132 (1919).
¶16. A presumption of undue influence arises when (1) a confidential relationship existed between the testator and beneficiary, and (2) the beneficiary in the confidential relationship was actively involved in some way with preparing, procuring, or executing the will. Smith v Averill (In re Est. of Smith), 722 So.2d 606, 611 (Miss. 1998); Croft v. Alder, 237 Miss. 713, 115 So.2d 683 (1959). A confidential relationship exists when "one person is in a position to exercise dominant influence upon the other because of the latter's dependency on the former arising either from weakness of mind or body, or through trust[.]" Foster v. Williams (In re Est. of Laughter), 23 So.3d 1055,...
To continue reading
Request your trial