In re Estate of Smith
Citation | 827 So.2d 673 |
Decision Date | 20 June 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 2000-CA-00778-SCT.,2000-CA-00778-SCT. |
Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Bennie Loyd SMITH, Deceased: Tyree Irving and Ethola Irving v. Hallie Phillips Streater. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
Everett T. Sanders, Natchez, attorney for appellants.
Luke J. Schissel, Greenwood, attorney for appellee.
EN BANC.
PITTMAN, C.J., for the court.
¶ 1. Bennie Loyd Smith died at the distinguished age of 100 on March 28, 1997. Eleven days later, Tyree Irving filed a petition to probate a will dated February 1, 1997, in the Chancery Court of the Second Judicial District of Carroll County, attesting that it was Smith's last testament. Irving was appointed executor of the estate and issued letters of administration. Four days after Irving's petition, Hallie Phillips Streater filed a writing she claimed to be Smith's last testament dated March 26, 1996, in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Carroll County. She was appointed executrix of the estate and issued letters of administration. When this competing will was discovered, the chancellor quashed Streater's letters of administration, consolidated the two cases, and treated the action as a contest of the validity of the February 1 will. The chancellor issued an opinion finding a confidential relationship existed between Smith and Irving giving rise to a presumption of undue influence; the presumption was not rebutted by Irving by clear and convincing evidence; and therefore the February 1 will was not the last testament of Bennie Smith. Irving now appeals this ruling. We affirm the trial court's judgment, finding the chancellor's opinion to be solidly grounded in fact and his analysis of the issues to be thorough and well-reasoned. We quote from his opinion at length and adopt the trial judge's opinion as the opinion of this Court.
FACTS
¶ 2. The trial court found the following:
This is an action to contest the validity of a will dated February 1, 1997, executed by Benny Lloyd Smith who was, at that time, ninety-nine years of age. At the time, Mr. Smith had no children and no brothers or sisters who were living. His nearest relatives were some nieces and nephews and many great or great-great nieces or nephews. The evidence does not indicate that Mr. Smith had a will prior to March 27, 1996. On that day, he executed a will prepared by Pat Barrett leaving his estate to a greatniece, Hallie Streater. On May 3, 1996, he executed another will prepared by Tyree Irving, by which he left a number of specific bequests to a variety of friends and relatives with the residue and bulk of the estate to Dorothy Gaston, who was not a relative, and her children. On May 22, 1996, he executed another will prepared by Tyree Irving in which he added a beneficiary to the May 3 will and added a statement about why he was not leaving any assets to Hallie Streater. On February 1, 1997, he executed his fourth will in which he made some specific bequests, but less than in the May will, and then left the residue of his estate to Tyree Irving, who he had only known for eight months, having first met him on May 3, 1996, and his wife, Ethola. This will was prepared by Solomon Osborne. The contestant in this action is Hallie Streater, the beneficiary of the March 1996 will. The Court has previously ruled that any contest of the wills would have to be tried separately since the issues and parties' positions would be different with each and that the most recent will would have to be contested first for if it is valid, there would be no necessity to deal with the other previous wills. Further, the evidence revealed a number of inter vivos gifts between May 1996, and February 1, 1997, and the Court's position is that only the beneficiary of a valid will or his heirs at law, if there is no valid will, could challenge these gifts. Thus, the validity of the gifts cannot be addressed until the validity of the wills is resolved. Hallie Streater, the beneficiary of the first will, is the only contestant, but all the beneficiaries of the last three wills and all the heirs have been made parties since they are all interested parties and are necessary parties under the will contest statute.
After hearing the evidence, the chancellor concluded that the February 1, 1997, will was indeed the product of undue influence placed upon Smith by Irving. He therefore entered an order revoking the probate of the February 1 will. Irving offers us three issues for review.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 3. 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. Estate of Grantham v. Roberts, 609 So.2d 1220, 1223 (Miss.1992). Reversal is not warranted by this Court if the chancellor's findings are supported by substantial, credible evidence which support the findings. Estate of Grubbs, 753 So.2d 1043, 1046 (Miss.2000).
DISCUSSION
¶ 4. To begin our analysis of each issue, we resume with the chancellor's opinion:
At the inception of the trial, the proponent of the will introduced the will and the proofs of will filed with it with the Clerk and the order admitting it to probate. With this introduction, the proponents made a prima facie case of the validity of the will. In Re Estate of Smith,722 So.2d 606; In Re Estate of Edwards, 520 So.2d [1370,] 1372
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Estate of Miller, 2002-CA-00231-SCT.
...a chancellor's findings unless manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or an erroneous legal standard was applied. In re Estate of Smith, 827 So.2d 673, 675 (Miss.2002); Miller v. Pannell, 815 So.2d 1117, 1119 (Miss.2002); Morris v. Morris, 804 So.2d 1025, 1027 DISCUSSION I. WHETHER THE CHANCE......
-
In re Estate of Holmes
...583 So.2d 1259, 1275 (Miss.1991)(Hawkins, P.J., dissenting on reh'g)). ¶ 20. This Court reiterated that finding in Irving v. Phillips, 827 So.2d 673, 680 (Miss.2002). In Irving, an elderly man, with no children or living brothers or sisters, changed his will to leave the residue of his esta......
-
In the Matter of Estate of Woodfield, No. 2004-CA-00238-COA (MS 3/21/2006)
...testament. ¶7. The chancellor found that the 2001 will was void due to a breach of John's fiduciary duty pursuant to In re Estate of Smith, 827 So. 2d 673 (Miss. 2002) . The chancellor further admitted the 1973 will to probate and appointed Sharon as administratrix cum testamento annexo. Sh......
-
Dunn v. Hart (In re Hitt)
...his daughter/associate. Hudson testified that he and his daughter knew they were witnessing Ginger's will. See Smith v. Streater (In re Est. of Smith) , 827 So. 2d 673, 680, 684 (¶¶4-5) (Miss. 2002) (affirming chancellor's finding "that all that is required to overcome the secrecy issue is ......