Dees v. Metts
245 Ala. 370, 17 So.2d 137 (1944)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An illicit or meretricious relationship between a testator and a beneficiary is not, by itself, sufficient to establish a presumption of undue influence that would invalidate a will or a deed. To prove undue influence, there must be evidence of coercion or fraud that destroys the testator's free agency, such as active participation by the beneficiary in the procurement of the instrument.
Facts:
- J.B. Watts, a white man, was engaged in a long-term, illicit relationship with Nazarine Parker, a Black woman.
- Watts expressed to his banker, Mr. Dees, his desire to leave his property to Parker because she had taken care of him, while his own family had only borrowed money and not repaid it.
- Watts executed a will prepared by Mr. Dees, naming Parker as the sole beneficiary and Mr. Dees as the executor. Parker was not present during the will's preparation or execution.
- Several months later, Watts consulted an attorney, Mr. Lee, expressing concern that his family would try to break the will.
- On his attorney's advice and to further ensure his wishes were carried out, Watts executed a deed conveying his real estate to Parker, reserving a life estate for himself. Parker was not present for this transaction either.
- Numerous business associates and professionals who knew Watts testified that he was a man of sound mind, keen intellect, and strong determination, and was not easily persuaded.
- Two witnesses for the contestants testified that Parker later said she "had every damn thing fixed" and had told Watts to make a deed because the will might not hold.
- The deed recited a nominal consideration of one dollar, but the property was worth approximately $2,000 to $2,500.
Procedural Posture:
- The executor of J.B. Watts' will offered it for probate in the probate court.
- Watts' next of kin filed a contest against the will on the grounds of undue influence and mental incapacity.
- The will contest was transferred from the probate court to the circuit court for a jury trial.
- The contestants also filed a separate bill in equity in the circuit court to cancel an inter vivos deed from Watts to Nazarine Parker on the same grounds.
- By agreement, the will contest and the suit to cancel the deed were consolidated for a single trial.
- The jury returned a verdict for the contestants, finding both the will and the deed invalid.
- The proponent of the will and deed (appellant) appealed the judgment entered on the jury's verdict to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
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 evidence of a long-term, illicit, interracial relationship, combined with the beneficiary's subsequent comments about the property being 'fixed' for her, constitute sufficient proof of undue influence to invalidate a will and a deed made by a testator of sound mind and determined will?
Opinions:
Majority - Gardner, C.J.
No, this evidence does not constitute sufficient proof of undue influence. It is settled law that an illicit relationship is not sufficient per se to warrant a conclusion of undue influence, nor does it create a presumption thereof. Undue influence sufficient to void a will must amount to coercion or fraud that destroys the free agency of the testator. Here, the evidence overwhelmingly showed that Watts was of sound mind and strong will, and that he acted on his own determined wishes after receiving independent legal and financial advice. Parker was not present for, nor active in, the preparation or execution of either the will or the deed. Her subsequent comments are insufficient to prove she was the dominant party or that she coerced Watts. Furthermore, the trial court erred by giving a jury instruction on inadequate consideration, as that principle applies only to a bargain and sale, not to a deed of gift where consideration is irrelevant.
Dissenting - Bouldin, J.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find undue influence. The relationship between Watts and Parker was a continuous felony that violated the state's fixed public policy against race amalgamation. A man engaging in such a relationship at great social cost may become so infatuated as to render the mistress the dominant party. Parker’s alleged declarations that she had things 'fixed' and told Watts to make a deed imply her activity and sense of power. This evidence, combined with Watts's intense and unfounded hostility towards his family, created a question of fact for the jury as to whether his stated purpose was his own free will or merely an echo of Parker's will. The jury's verdict should be respected.
Concurring - Brown, J.
I concur that the trial court erred in giving the jury instruction regarding inadequate consideration. Furthermore, the jury's verdict on the issues of incompetency and undue influence, for both the will and the deed, was against the great weight of the evidence and should not be allowed to stand. The grantor sought and received competent independent advice, which weighs against a finding of undue influence.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms the principle of testamentary freedom, emphasizing that a testator's right to dispose of property is paramount, even when their personal life is socially condemned or illegal. The court's decision sets a high bar for proving undue influence, refusing to create a presumption based on the nature of a relationship alone. It clarifies that to shift the burden of proof to the proponent of a will, the contestant must show active involvement by the beneficiary in the will's procurement, not just the existence of a confidential or illicit relationship. This precedent makes it more difficult to challenge wills based on moral or social objections to the testator's choices.
