Undue influence is a popular basis for will contests. The issue usually arises when someone – usually a caregiver – receives a gift from a person who is arguably weak and dependent upon the gift recipient. Someone will then object on the grounds of undue influence, arguing that the gift recipient had so much control over the gift giver that the gift would not have occurred without the “undue influence” of the gift recipient. It is essentially a claim that a greedy caretaker used his or her position of influence to take advantage of a weak-minded individual by causing that individual to make a gift to the caretaker. Undue influence claims can arise for gifts made during life (inter vivos) and through at death (by a will).
Undue influence formed the basis for a will contest in a recent Perry County probate case involving a chicken farmer named Bobby Ray and his three children: Jessie, Kenneth, and Sandra. A tractor had fallen on Bobby Ray in the 1980s, leaving him permanently injured and unable to run his chicken farm on his own. Bobby Ray’s wife, Avis, helped him run the chicken farm until she died in 2001. After Avis died, Jessie quit the trucking business and he and his wife moved in with Bobby Ray.
Shortly after Avis died, Bobby Ray deeded 70 acres, the family home, and the chicken farm to Jessie. A few months later, Bobby Ray deeded a separate 57 acre tract to his other son, Kenneth. About a year later, Bobby Ray died, leaving Kenneth and Jessie more/less the same property that he had already transferred to them, leaving his daughter, Sandra, $20,000.00, and leaving about $15,000 in specific bequests to other individuals.
Two of Bobby Ray’s children, Sandra and Kenneth, did not like the fact that Bobby Ray had given so much to their trucker-turned-caregiver brother, Jessie. So they challenged the will, claiming that it was the result of undue influence. Sandra and Kenneth also claimed that Bobby Ray lacked mental capacity to execute a valid Mississippi Last Will and Testament. The Perry County probate (chancery) court had two issues to decide: (1) were Bobby Ray’s gifts to Jessie the product of undue influence and (2) did Bobby Ray have the testamentary capacity to make a valid Last Will and Testament.
Mississippi’s law regarding undue influence is well established. If there is a confidential relationship, the court presumes that there has been undue influence. This means that, by default, gifts made to a person in a confidential relationship with the gift-giver are invalid. To overcome this default invalidity, the person receiving the gift must show good faith of the recipient, full knowledge and deliberation by the giver, and independent consent and action by the giver.
These principles apply regardless of whether a gift is made during life (inter vivos) or at death (testamentary). But there is a distinction between inter vivos and testamentary gifts. If the gift was made during lifetime (inter vivos), there is an automatic presumption of undue influence regardless of whether the confidential relationship was abused. If the gift was made at death (testamentary), the gift is presumptively invalid if there has been an abuse of the confidential relationship.
Because these rules stand or fall on the existence of a confidential relationship, this is where the real battles are often fought. The existence of a confidential relationship depends on several factors, including (1) whether the person has to be taken care of by others; (2) whether the person maintains a close relationship with another; (3) whether the person is provided transportation and has medical care provided by another; (4) whether the person maintains joint accounts with another; (5) whether the person is physically or mentally weak; (6) whether the person is of advanced age or poor health; and (7)whether there is a power of attorney between the person and another.
As applied to this case, the rules mean that if there was a confidential relationship between Bobby Ray and Jessie, the inter vivos gifts were presumptively invalid. Period. The testamentary gifts would be invalid only if Jessie abused the confidential relationship.
At trial, testimony was presented that, although Bobby Ray had some physical issues, he was a shrewd businessman who negotiated contracts and managed his own affairs and was able to drive to town and to his hunting camp. Several witnesses testified that Bobby was strong-minded (not easily influenced), always making up his own mind about things and doing what was right.
Based on this evidence, the Perry County probate (chancery) court believed that there was no confidential relationship between Bobby Ray and Jessie. However, the chancellor appeared to misstate the rules regarding undue influence, improperly placing the burden of proof on the opponents of the will to establish lack of capacity and undue influence. Sandra and Kenneth appealed the Perry County chancery court’s decision.
Over a dissenting opinion, the majority of the Mississippi Court of Appeals upheld the chancery court’s opinion in spite of the misstatement of the chancellor. The Court of Appeals called this language a “slip of the tongue” and felt that the rest of the chancellor’s opinion demonstrated that the chancellor knew and rightly applied the rules. The Court of Appeals upheld the Perry County probate (chancery) court’s opinion, finding that Sandra and Kenneth had filed to establish the existence of a confidential relationship between Jessie and Bobby Ray. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Perry County chancery court.
In re Estate of Finley, 2008-CA-01289-COA (February 23, 2010)
If the court allowed the chancellor to misstate the rules, and misplace the burden of proof on the opponents, in most court construction, it would be an error that allows an abuse of process sufficient to have overturned the decision based upon such error.
If it isn’t overturned, it allows the Appeals Court to impose upon all lower courts the error that has now been upheld as legitimate – and that is how law becomes twisted in American Courts to press principles that are illegal but which become legalally justified by poor Judges, and the chancellors willing to take advantage of them.
The other perspective is that the Judges and the lawyers conspired to produce that outcome, allowing abuse of process to become the corrupt mechanism by which legal principles become illegal acts.