Wolfe v. Estate of Wolfe
| Decision Date | 04 May 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 1998-CA-01269-COA.,1998-CA-01269-COA. |
| Citation | 756 So.2d 788 |
| Parties | Willis W. WOLFE, II, Appellant, v. ESTATE OF Exa B. WOLFE, deceased and Elaine W. Abney, Appellees. |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
David M. Sessums, Vicksburg, Attorney for Appellant.
Mark W. Prewitt, Vicksburg, Attorney for Appellees.
BEFORE McMILLIN, C.J., IRVING, AND PAYNE, JJ.
PAYNE, J., for the Court:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 1. On September 11, 1996, Willis Wolfe filed his complaint in the Chancery Court of Claiborne County, Mississippi, to confirm title and to cancel cloud on the title to property which he claimed. On October 9, 1996, Elaine Abney, on behalf of the Estate of Exa Wolfe, filed a motion for a protective order in an effort to obtain all original wills and any copies of drafts of wills. On October 15, 1996, the Estate of Exa Wolfe filed an answer and counterclaim.
¶ 2. After reviewing the evidence, the chancellor denied Willis Wolfe's claim. Feeling aggrieved, Willis appealed.
FACTS
¶ 3. Harold and Exa Wolfe were married and owned property in Claiborne County, Mississippi. From the marriage, two children were born, Elaine Wolfe (Abney) and Willis Wolfe. Harold died and was survived by his wife and children. Harold left a last will and testament, dated September 18, 1976, naming his son, Willis, executor.
¶ 4. On November 15, 1977, Exa conveyed an undivided 1/24 interest in property to Willis. On January 27, 1978, April 29, 1979, March 12, 1980, June 2, 1981, May 18, 1982, February 20, 1983, April 7, 1984, January 24, 1985, November 5, 1986, January 21, 1987, and April 3, 1988, Exa conveyed additional undivided 1/24 interests in the subject property to Willis. Each of these deeds were witnessed by Exa's sister, Barbara Ellis. Together, the twelve deeds conveyed one-half of the subject property to Willis Wolfe. None of the twelve deeds were recorded in the land records.
¶ 5. On December 30, 1985, Exa Wolfe, for $10.00 consideration actually paid, sold a separate parcel (from the property listed above) known as "Anchuca" or "Primrose Place" to Willis and this deed was recorded in the land records.
¶ 6. On March 24, 1988, Exa signed a last will and testament. In pertinent part, this will stated:
I hereby give and devise unto my son, Willis W. Wolfe, it, all of that real property owned by me at the time of my death situated approximately one mile southeast of Port Gibson, Mississippi, and comprising, at the death of my husband, approximately 927 acres. I have, since the death of my husband, conveyed some of the acreage during my lifetime to my son, and I intend to convey more of this acreage during my lifetime. However, should any of this real property be owned by me at the time of my death, then I hereby give and devise said real property unto my son, Willis W. Wolfe, II.
The will of March 24, 1988, was revoked and rescinded by the last will and testament of Exa Wolfe, dated September 2, 1994. Exa died leaving a last will and testament which purports to devise to her daughter, Elaine, the property which was conveyed to Willis by the above described twelve deeds. This last will was admitted into probate in Warren County, Mississippi.
¶ 7. Willis filed an objection to the last will of his mother, seeking to have the will canceled solely as it relates to the undivided one-half interest which he claimed under the twelve deeds. Willis further seeks to have the fee simple title to said undivided one-half interest confirmed in himself. By counterclaim, the Estate of Wolfe brought issue with the purported conveyance of Anchuca to Willis by his mother.
¶ 8. On November 13, 1996, Willis filed five requests for admissions. The Estate of Wolfe responded to the requests on January 3, 1997. However, the responses were not timely filed. Pursuant to Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure 36, the requests for admissions were admitted.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 9. Chancellors are vested with broad discretion, and this Court will not disturb the chancellor's findings unless the court's actions were manifestly wrong, the court abused its discretion, or the court applied an erroneous legal standard. Sandlin v. Sandlin, 699 So.2d 1198, 1203 (Miss.1997).
ANALYSIS AND ISSUES PRESENTED
¶ 10. Willis first argues the validity of the deeds, each conveying a 1/24 interest in the property. None of these deeds were recorded in the chancery clerk's office. According to Willis, Miss.Code Ann. § 89-1-1 (Rev.1994) provides that interests in land are conveyed by writings signed and delivered and that such writings shall have the effect of transfer, according to their terms and the title of the person signing and delivering it. As stated by Willis, the recording statute becomes applicable only in situations involving a third-party purchaser for valuable consideration without notice. See Miss. Code Ann. § 89-5-1 (Rev.1994). Supplementing his statutory argument, Willis cites Taylor v. Welch, 609 So.2d 1225 (Miss.1992) to support his contention that a deed need not be recorded to be valid for purposes of delivery of the deed. Cited within Taylor is McMillan v. Gibson, 222 Miss. 408, 76 So.2d 239 (1954). In McMillan, the Mississippi Supreme Court stated that "[T]he primary question in determining whether a valid delivery of a deed took place is the intention of a grantor." Id.
¶ 11. According to Willis, the original twelve deeds from Exa B. Wolfe were personally signed by her and witnessed by Exa's sister. These deeds were delivered by Exa to her son, Willis, who remained in possession of the deeds. Thus, Willis argues, between Exa and himself, a valid conveyance of an undivided one-half interest in the subject property took place.
¶ 12. Elaine (Abney) Wolfe and the Estate of Wolfe agree that the deeds are valid as between Exa and Willis, thus they do not argue the obvious. In fact, the ruling of the chancellor stated: "[t]here is no question as to whether the twelve (12) conveyances, each conveying an undivided one twenty-fourth (1/24) interest, between Exa B. Wolfe and Willis W. Wolfe were signed by her and delivered to him." The Estate of Wolfe argues that the issue is not whether the conveyance was valid, but whether Exa had the right to legally convey by gift property to another.
¶ 13. Having said the above, we now review whether the last will and testament of Harold Wolfe conferred on Exa Wolfe the authority to give the property in question to whomever she pleased.
¶ 14. It is elemental that when construing the will of a testator, the function of the chancellor, as well as that of this Court, is to determine and respect the intent of the testator. Estate of Dedeaux, 584 So.2d 419, 421 (Miss.1991) (citing Yeates v. Box, 198 Miss. 602, 609, 22 So.2d 411, 413 (1945)). It was not the function of the chancellor, nor is it of this Court, to determine a just and fair disposition of (the) estate, but instead to respect his (testator's) intent. Yeates, 22 So.2d at 413. In determining the testator's intent, in the absence of ambiguity, the Mississippi Supreme Court, as well as this Court, is limited to the "four corners" of the will itself. Tinnin v. First United Bank of Mississippi, 502 So.2d 659, 663 (Miss. 1987). Furthermore, the four cardinal rules of construction are:
In Raworth's Estate, 211 Miss. 780, 785, 52 So.2d 661, 662-63 (1951). This procedure for construing wills was affirmed in a recent Mississippi Supreme Court case entitled Matter of Estate of Homburg v. Clark, 697 So.2d 1154, 1157-58 (Miss.1997).
¶ 15. Turning toward the will, we find that the last will and testament of Harold Wolfe, dated September 18, 1976, expressly states that Exa B. Wolfe "shall have the power to convey a fee simple title in such property." Item III (the clause from which this litigation began) states:
¶ 16. Willis believes that his mother, Exa, is entitled by the wording above, to convey title to any property passing to her under the will in fee simple. He argues that "fee simple" is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Smothers v. State, 98-KA-00005-COA.
-
Smith v. Jaco
...otherwise valid, but unrecorded, deed is sufficient to convey the grantor's ownership interest in the premises. See Wolfe v. Estate of Wolfe, 756 So. 2d 788, 790 (Miss. 1990) (fact that deeds were not recorded did not defeat contestant's claim to property; recording was only required in sit......