Costello v. Hall, 56571

Decision Date29 April 1987
Docket NumberNo. 56571,56571
Citation506 So.2d 293
PartiesMarion L. COSTELLO, Executor of the Estate of Linnie Hall, Deceased v. W.C. HALL, Jr.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Landman Teller, Jr., Teller, Chaney & Rector, Vicksburg, for appellant.

David M. Sessums, Varner, Parker & Sessums, Vicksburg, for appellee.

Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and DAN M. LEE and SULLIVAN, JJ.

DAN M. LEE, Justice, for the Court:

Linnie B. Hall, the testatrix whose will is at issue in this case, died at Vicksburg Medical Center on September 30, 1982. Her Last Will and Testament, written during her final illness on September 15, 1982, was filed with the Chancery Court of Warren County on October 1, 1982, by Marion Costello, Mrs. Hall's brother and executor. On October 8, 1982, Mrs. Hall's husband, W.C. Hall, filed a Petition for Contest of Will, alleging lack of mental capacity and undue influence.

The chancery court ordered a bifurcated hearing to determine: 1) whether the will should be upheld; and 2) whether Mr. Hall had the right to renounce the will. The chancellor ultimately found that Mrs. Hall had the requisite mental capacity to make a will, but held that the proponents of the will had failed to overcome the presumption of undue influence; but, of course, did not reach the renunciation hearing. The will contest was sustained and the will removed from probate. This appeal followed, with Mr. Costello assigning as error:

I.

The lower court erred in finding that there was an applicable confidential relationship existing which gave rise to a presumption of undue influence.

II.

The lower court erred in concluding that Appellant had failed to overcome that presumption, even if one did exist, by clear and convincing evidence.

III.

The lower court erred in not upholding the Last Will and Testament of decedent dated September 15, 1982, as probated.

Additionally, Mr. Hall has cross-appealed, assigning as error that the lower court erred in refusing to remove Marion Costello as executor of the estate of Linnie B. Hall, deceased.

We conclude that the contentions of the appellant have merit, and, thus, reverse and render as to undue influence and remand this case for the renunciation hearing not yet held. We affirm on cross-appeal.

At issue in this case is whether Marion Costello improperly influenced his sister, Linnie Hall, to write a will leaving the bulk of her property to him and leaving her husband only $10.00. To resolve this issue, the parties presented evidence to the chancellor regarding Mrs. Hall's relationship with her husband and her family. A summary of that testimony follows:

W.C. and Linnie Hall married on April 4, 1970, when Mrs. Hall was about 54 years old, and Mr. Hall about 47. Prior to the parties' marriage, Mrs. Hall apparently had some small amount of money and property. She was also working, although she quit her job sometime after their marriage. Mr. Hall worked as a tool and die maker.

Mrs. Hall was an alcoholic, and the medical records submitted reveal that she had been diagnosed as having cirrhosis of the liver several years before her final illness. Mr. Hall was also a heavy drinker, and Mrs. Hall's medical records indicate that her failure to quit drinking might be partly attributable to him.

Mr. and Mrs. Hall had no children, although Mr. Hall had children and grandchildren by a previous marriage. Mrs. Hall had two sisters and two brothers, all of whom appear to live out of state.

On May 26, 1981, attorney J. Stanford Terry prepared a will for Mrs. Hall, in which she left Mr. Hall only a 1/4 interest in her real estate. She also left several individual bequests, and the remainder to her brother, Marion Costello. At the same time, Mrs. Hall executed a power of attorney in favor of Marion Costello.

A few months later, on September 25, 1981, Mrs. Hall executed another will leaving W.C. Hall a legacy of only $10.00, making several legacies and bequests to family members, and leaving the remainder of her estate, again, to Marion Costello. Among the individual gifts she left were legacies of $1,000.00 each to her two step-grandchildren. Mr. Terry, who also drafted this will, testified later that he carefully explained to Mrs. Hall the possible ramifications of attempting to exclude her husband, which was the reason for the $10.00 legacy.

On May 9, 1982, Mrs. Hall was admitted to the emergency room at Vicksburg Medical Center with septicemia. Hospital records reveal that she arrived by ambulance, clad in only a urine and feces-stained sheet. According to testimony that Mrs. Hall gave at a later deposition, Mr. Hall refused to help her dress after she collapsed on the floor of their bedroom, and merely called an ambulance for her. A friend, Mrs. Corbin, is shown on the hospital records as having given Mrs. Hall's history to the medical attendants, although Mr. Hall's signature is purportedly on the admission documents. The records indicate that Hall visited his wife on some occasions during this stay at the hospital; however, his visits were ultimately forbidden by Dr. Karl Hatten, Mrs. Hall's physician, because he was upsetting Mrs. Hall. Mrs. Hall was successfully treated for this illness and she was discharged from the hospital on June 11, 1982. Upon discharge from the hospital, she stayed at the Corbin home.

On June 3, 1982, Mrs. Hall filed for divorce, on grounds of cruel and unhuman treatment and habitual drunkenness. She later stated that she had been put out of her house by her husband, and that he had moved another woman into it.

On September 4, 1982, Mrs. Hall was again admitted to the Vicksburg Medical Center. The diagnosis was impending hepatic coma--a common end result of cirrhosis of the liver. She ultimately did become comatose, responding only to painful stimuli by September 8. This condition continued until September 14, when she became awake and alert.

Mr. Hall did not visit his wife during this hospitalization. Other family members, including Marion Costello (a resident of the State of Washington), were noted by the staff as being in regular attendance and very supportive and caring of Mrs. Hall.

During the period of consciousness beginning on September 14, Mr. Costello contacted Mr. Terry about revising Mrs. Hall's will. Terry made the revision, which changed only the $2,000.00 legacy of the two step-grandchildren and gave it, instead, to the Corbins. He took the will to the hospital on September 15. Before talking to Mrs. Hall about the new will, Terry had Dr. Hatten examine Mrs. Hall and determine that she was competent to execute the document. After Hatten determined that Mrs. Hall could sign the will, Terry took it into her room for her execution.

At the same time that the new will was executed, Terry had Mrs. Hall execute a new power of attorney. This document was prepared on his own initiative, and included language allowing the power to continue despite any subsequent disability. Terry stated that he prepared the document to conform to a change in the law since the first power of attorney was signed in 1981.

Unfortunately, Mrs. Hall's recovery was short-lived. On September 17, she began having complications and, on the 20th, she lapsed back into a hepatic coma. Although her comatose state waxed and waned for about another week, by the 28th she became unresponsive. In the early evening of September 30, 1982, she began suffering seizures, and, a few hours later, died.

During Mrs. Hall's final illness, Marion Costello used his power of attorney to add himself to Mrs. Hall's savings accounts. Five days after her death, on October 5, 1982, he closed them, paid off an outstanding loan to the bank, and had $24,580.50 transferred to his account in Spokane, Washington. When Mr. Hall became aware of these actions, he obtained a Fiat ordering Costello to appear regarding his handling of the assets of Mrs. Hall's estate. At a hearing on September 14, 1983, the court held that the power of attorney granted to Costello created a fiduciary relationship and raised the presumption of undue influence. He ordered Costello to return the assets of the estate to Mississippi and to post a bond of $26,000.00.

In holding that the September, 1982, will should be removed from probate, the trial court found that Mrs. Hall had the requisite mental capacity to execute the will, stating that the testimony of Dr. Hatten and Mr. Terry was conclusive on the subject. However, with regard to the claim of undue influence, the chancellor made the following finding:

The Court finds that a fiduciary relationship existed between the Deceased and her brother ... arising out of the Power of Attorney. ... As a result, the proponents of the will must prove ... that there was no undue influence exercised. ...

The elements that must be proved by clear and convincing evidence are stated to be; (Murray v. Laird [,446 So.2d 575 (Miss.1984) ] ...)

1. Good faith on the part of the grantee/beneficiary.

2. Grantor's full knowledge and deliberation of his actions and their consequences; and

3. Advice of (a) competent person (b) disconnected from the Grantee and (c) devoted wholly to the grantor/testator's interest ...

Mr. Terry did not confer with Mrs. Hall prior to drafting the 15 September 1982 Will, and Mr. Costello may have been present when it was executed.

Under these circumstances, this Court is unable to say that the absence of undue influence has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. ...

In its effort to faithfully follow the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court reaches a result contrary to the expressed wishes of the Decedent over a period of some sixteen months during marriage and separation--for lack of proof by clear and convincing evidence of the absence of undue influence. (emphasis added)

Thus, the chancellor below found that: 1) a power of attorney, in and of itself, creates a confidential relationship; 2) a confidential relationship automatically raises the presumption of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Mullins v. Ratcliff
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1987
    ...such as that found here may often undergird a finding of ultimate fact that a confidential relationship exists. See Costello v. Hall, 506 So.2d 293, 296-97 (Miss.1987). The Court further found that Mary had successfully rebutted the presumption of undue influence. The Court relied on the te......
  • Fortenberry v. Foxworth Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • June 9, 1993
    ...as a fact in which there is confidence reposed on one side and resulting superiority and influence on the other), and Costello v. Hall, 506 So.2d 293, 298 (Miss. 1987) (further discussing presumption of undue influence), the plaintiff argues that the relationship between Mr. Fortenberry and......
  • Estate of Vick, Matter of
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • September 20, 1989
    ...are reminded of the most solemn obligation any court can have: to see that the true intent of the testator is carried out. Costello v. Hall, 506 So.2d 293 (Miss.1987), and further that it is not the court's function to decide whether a will was in fact "unfair" or "unjust," Matter of Last W......
  • Will of McCaffrey v. Fortenberry
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1991
    ...530 So.2d 168 (Miss.1988); Estate of McRae, 522 So.2d 731 (Miss.1988); Sacco v. Gordon, 515 So.2d 906 (Miss.1987); Costello v. Hall, 506 So.2d 293 (Miss.1987); Will of Polk, 497 So.2d 815 (Miss.1986); McDowell v. Pennington, 394 So.2d 323 (Miss.1981); Genna v. Harrington, 254 So.2d 525 (Mis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT