Bronwyn Benoist Parker v. William Dean Benoist
160 So. 3d 198, 2015 WL 691300, 2014 Miss. LEXIS 631 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A forfeiture clause (in terrorem clause) in a will is unenforceable against a beneficiary who contests the will if the contest is brought in good faith and is based on probable cause.
Facts:
- In 1998, B.D. Benoist and his wife Mary executed mutual reciprocal wills, agreeing to leave their estate in equal shares to their children, Bronwyn Parker and William Benoist.
- After Mary's death, a trust was established for B.D.'s benefit, with Bronwyn and William as co-trustees.
- Beginning in 2008, B.D.'s health declined significantly; he suffered from dementia, alcoholism, and a prescription drug addiction. His physician diagnosed him with 'significant dementia.'
- During this period of decline, William, who was facing financial hardship, received substantial inter vivos gifts of money and real estate from B.D., and large sums were withdrawn from B.D.'s trust.
- In 2010, B.D. executed a new will which altered the distributions from the 1998 will and included a forfeiture clause that would disinherit any beneficiary who contested it, 'regardless of whether or not such proceedings are instituted in good faith and with probable cause.'
- B.D. died less than a year after executing the 2010 will.
Procedural Posture:
- After B.D. Benoist’s death, his son, William Benoist, submitted the 2010 will for probate in the Chancery Court of Yalobusha County.
- B.D.'s daughter, Bronwyn Parker, filed a complaint to contest the 2010 will, alleging undue influence, and submitted the 1998 will for probate.
- The matters were consolidated, and a jury trial was held in the Chancery Court.
- The jury found the 2010 will to be valid and enforceable, finding that while a confidential relationship existed, William had not exerted undue influence over B.D.
- Following the verdict, the chancellor applied the forfeiture clause from the 2010 will and held that Bronwyn was disinherited for having contested the will.
- Bronwyn Parker, as appellant, appealed the chancellor's enforcement of the forfeiture clause to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Mississippi law recognize an exception to enforcing an in terrorem (forfeiture) clause in a will when a beneficiary's challenge is brought in good faith and with probable cause?
Opinions:
Majority - Kitchens, J.
Yes, Mississippi law recognizes an exception for will contests brought in good faith and with probable cause. Enforcing a forfeiture clause without such an exception would be unconstitutional, against public policy, and would frustrate the fundamental purpose of the courts to ascertain the truth. The court reasoned that strictly enforcing these clauses stifles bona fide inquiries into a will's validity, which may have been procured through fraud or undue influence. This good-faith exception aligns Mississippi with the majority of jurisdictions, the Restatement (Third) of Property, and principles of equity. Most compellingly, the court found that enforcing a no-contest clause regardless of the challenger's good faith violates Article 3, Section 24 of the Mississippi Constitution, which guarantees every person the right of access to the courts for an injury done to them. The court determined that Bronwyn's challenge was brought in good faith and was supported by probable cause, given her father's documented mental decline, his substantial inter vivos gifts to William, and the drastic change from the 1998 mutual wills.
Analysis:
This case establishes new precedent in Mississippi by formally adopting the majority rule that forfeiture (in terrorem) clauses are not absolute. The decision significantly limits a testator's power, elevating public policy and a beneficiary's constitutional right to access the courts over the testator's intent to deter litigation. It creates a judicial backstop against wills potentially procured by undue influence, fraud, or lack of capacity by protecting beneficiaries who have legitimate grounds for suspicion. Consequently, future will contests involving forfeiture clauses will necessitate a secondary inquiry by the court into the challenger's motives and the basis for their claim if the initial contest fails.
