Estate of Grantham, Matter of, 90-CA-641
| Decision Date | 22 July 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-CA-641,90-CA-641 |
| Citation | 609 So.2d 1220 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Grace B. GRANTHAM. Dorothy DENT, Letina Bonnie, Hazel H. Lindsay, Evelyn B. Goree, Pauline C. Hopper, Albert Currie Hopper, Dr. Phillip Burton, Mary E. Burton Long, Fannie Mae Kennedy, T.E. Hamner, Jr., Helen Hamner Craddock, Verna Grace Burton Payne, Jeff Burton, Margaret B. Inmon, Nimrod T. Underwood, Betty J. Ekey and Walter Clyde Hamner v. John L. ROBERTS and William E. Goodwin. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
David H. Linder, Hamilton & Linder, Meridian, for appellants.
John L. Prichard, Deen Cameron & Prichard, Meridian, for appellee.
Before HAWKINS, P.J., and PITTMAN and McRAE, JJ.
McRAE, Justice, for the Court:
This appeal springs from an unsuccessful motion to set aside the 1980 will of Grace B. Grantham, deceased. The proceedings were filed in the Chancery Court of Lauderdale County, wherein Judge George D. Warner, Jr., entered his Opinion and Judgment on May 16, 1990, dismissing with prejudice the Complaint to Set Aside Will.
The plaintiffs/appellants are all either nephews and nieces of the testatrix or descendants of deceased nephews and nieces. The defendants and beneficiaries under the will are John Roberts, executor of the estate, and William Goodwin. Testatrix Grantham was Goodwin's great aunt and Roberts' aunt. After a hearing, the court below found for the proponents of the will and denied the motion to set aside. On appeal, the appellants argue that: (1) Roberts and Goodwin occupied a confidential or fiduciary relationship with Grantham; (2) both participated in the procurement, preparation, and/or execution of the will, and that such actions combined with the fiduciary relationship raised a presumption of undue influence; (3) a presumption of undue influence arose because Roberts held a general power of attorney from Grantham at the time of the execution of the will; and (4) the beneficiaries/proponents failed to overcome the presumption of undue influence by clear and convincing evidence.
We find that although a confidential relationship existed between Grantham and the defendants/appellees, no abuse of the relationship occurred. The chancellor did not err in denying the motion to set aside the will of Grace Grantham. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTS
Testatrix Grantham was born on April 27, 1900. She never had any children, and her husband predeceased her. She was also predeceased by her parents, as well as her eight brothers and sisters. She was not illiterate, but she never worked outside the home and was unable to drive. Throughout her life, it seems, she relied on others.
On August 18, 1980, Grantham moved into the Kings Daughters Nursing Home in Meridian, Mississippi. Goodwin lived only five minutes from the nursing home and would visit Grantham regularly and make arrangements for her to go to the doctor if necessary. Roberts lived in Texas and saw Grantham less frequently. He nevertheless handled all of Grantham's money and business affairs, as he had done since 1972, traveling from Texas to Meridian about once a month. Roberts paid the taxes on Grantham's land from her money, paid her nursing home bills, and collected the rent money from the land she owned. He deposited all of this money in her account at Merchants & Farmers Bank.
On October 23, 1979, Grantham had given Roberts a power of attorney. 1 Roberts testified that he used this power of attorney mainly to sign checks for Grantham because she had a hard time writing her name because of her physical condition. It is noteworthy, however, that Roberts had been writing all of Grantham's checks and tending to all of her business before the power of attorney was ever executed.
Soon after entering the nursing home, Grantham broke her hip. Roberts, Goodwin, their wives, and Evelyn Goree, one of the appellants, found a will dated 1971 among Grantham's personal papers while looking for insurance forms. All of the Margaret Inmon, also one of the plaintiffs, testified that some time after the old will was discovered, Roberts called her and said "he sure wished that that will could be changed and didn't I." Goree similarly testified that shortly after finding the old will, Roberts told her, "We need to get that will changed or they will be filthy rich."
parties present read the will. A copy of the 1971 will was not available at the hearing below, but according to Evelyn Goree's recollection, the will named three beneficiaries: Fannie Mae Kennedy, Velma Higgins, and Nona Hopper. These women were Grantham's three oldest nieces.
Goodwin testified that at some point late in 1980, on one of his regular visits to Grantham, she told him that she needed to go see her lawyer, Mr. Spinks. 2 According to Goodwin, she mentioned she wanted to change her will, but she didn't say anything about the particular changes she wanted to make. Goodwin called Roberts, explained Grantham's request, and asked Roberts to come to Mississippi. Roberts called Mr. Spinks, the attorney, and made an appointment. Roberts, his wife, and Goodwin met at the nursing home and drove Grantham to her attorney's office on the appointed day. Grantham was in a wheelchair and needed to be helped into the car.
Roberts also testified about the events leading up to the execution of the new will. According to Roberts, everyone went inside the attorney's office. Mr. Spinks, the attorney, explained to Grantham that she would have to destroy the old will before she could make up a new one. She tore it into four pieces and handed it back to the attorney. He destroyed it further, at her request, and threw it in the wastebasket. The attorney then asked her who she wanted to leave her assets to, and she pointed to Goodwin and Roberts, calling them by name. The attorney prepared the new will and read it to Grantham. Apparently, the attorney never discussed Grantham's assets with her, nor did he ask who all of her relatives were. After the will was read to her, Grantham signed it and then Spinks signed as a witness, as did his secretary.
Roberts' wife offered a somewhat different account. She testified that when they entered the attorney's office Mr. Roberts told Spinks that Grantham wanted to change her will and leave all of her property to Goodwin and him. None of the other witnesses corroborated this testimony.
Spinks, the attorney, testified that when Grantham came to his office he asked her if she wanted to change her will and she said, "Yes." He summarized the contents of the old will to her, when it was made, who the beneficiaries were, and who witnessed it, and asked her if she wanted to change it. She nodded and when asked who she wanted to leave her possessions to, she pointed to Roberts and Goodwin. Spinks also testified that he never had any discussions with Grantham outside the presence of Roberts, Goodwin and Roberts' wife. He noted that according to Grantham's own explanation, she wished to change the will because Goodwin and Roberts were the only ones doing anything for her and because they were taking care of her.
Grantham died on October 1, 1984. She left a will dated December 22, 1980, which named only Roberts and Goodwin as beneficiaries. The only property passing under the will was approximately 80 acres near Meridian. 3
The plaintiffs/appellants subsequently sought to have the will set aside, alleging inter alia, that it was procured through the exercise of undue influence by Goodwin and Roberts. After a hearing, the judge rendered an opinion dismissing the complaint. Regarding the alleged confidential relationship, the court found as follows:
Now, I find specifically by clear and convincing evidence that even if there is a rebuttable presumption of undue influence As to the conduct leading up to the execution of the 1980 will, the court noted:
because of a confidential relationship, because of a power of attorney, it has been overcome, but I specifically find that Mr. Roberts was not in a confidential relationship. The very existence of a power of attorney in all circumstances does not create a confidential relationship.
Just like it is a big pill for the court to swallow that a man goes to the nursing home, Mr. Roberts, and picks up the will for the first time and this man who I am to believe has a scheme to get it all. Question: he is pretty stupid not to tear up the will. Why did he bring it to the hospital and show it to Mrs. Goree? He doesn't impress me as being that dumb.... Somebody kept up the with lady's will. There are garbage cans all over town. Who tore up the will? Mrs. Grantham. In the presence of who? Her lawyer. So, I have to now believe that he was a co-conspirator or something because he tore up a good will intentionally? He handed it to the lady, Mr. Spinks said, "This is your old will, now you'll have to destroy it," and she tore it in four pieces and, because she was frail, handed it back, and he said, "Do you want me to tear it some more?" and she nodded assent or said, "yes," and he tore it up some more and threw it in the wastebasket. So he held onto that will a long time before he decided to rope Mr. Spinks into throwing it away, and I am to believe that she intended to die intestate. I can't believe that, and I don't believe that.
LAW
A Chancellor's findings of fact will not be disturbed unless they are manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous, or unless the chancellor applied an erroneous legal standard. Tinnin v. First United Bank, 570 So.2d 1193 (Miss.1990); In re Estate of Harris, 539 So.2d 1040, 1043 (Miss.1989). If the Chancellor's findings are supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record this Court will not reverse. Tinnin, 570 So.2d at 1194; In re Estate of Harris, 539 So.2d at 1043. We are here called upon to review three findings of fact in light of the clearly-erroneous standard. First, we must determine whether the chancellor correctly determined that no confidential or fiduciary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Johnson v. Johnson
... 237 So.3d 698 In the MATTER OF the ESTATE OF Dorothy JOHNSON, Deceased, Sheila West and Jennifer Patzius, Co-executrices: ... consider in determining whether a confidential relationship exists." Matter of Estate of Grantham , 609 So.2d 1220, 1223–24 (Miss. 1992) (citing Costello v. Hall , 506 So.2d 293, 297 ... ...
-
In re Estate of Smith
... 827 So.2d 673 In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Bennie Loyd SMITH, Deceased: ... Tyree Irving and Ethola Irving ... Hallie ... Estate of Grantham v. Roberts, 609 So.2d 1220, 1223 (Miss.1992) ... Reversal is not warranted by this Court if the ... ...
-
In re Estate of Dabney, 98-CA-00508-SCT.
... ... See In re Estate of Grantham, 609 So.2d 1220, 1224 (Miss. 1992) ; Costello v. Hall, 506 So.2d 293 (Miss.1987) ; Hendricks v ... Therefore, since he was not licensed to practice law, Boolos was clearly not competent as a matter of law to prepare the will ... ¶ 24. In addition, Boolos was not unconnected to ... ...
-
IN RE ESTATE OF REID, No. 2000-CA-00663-SCT.
...825 So.2d 1In The Matter of the ESTATE OF Mary L. REID, Deceased: ... Michael B. Cupit ... Thomas J. Pluskat ... No ... In re Estate of Grantham, 609 So.2d 1220, 1224 (Miss.1992); Costello v. Hall, 506 So.2d 293 (Miss.1987); Hendricks v. James, ... ...