In re Will of Moses
227 So. 2d 829 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a beneficiary who is in a confidential or fiduciary relationship with a testator receives a substantial bequest, a presumption of undue influence arises if the relationship is coupled with suspicious circumstances. This presumption can only be rebutted by the clearest proof of good faith, which includes showing that the testator acted on the basis of meaningful, independent advice from a disinterested counselor, not merely the services of a scrivener.
Facts:
- Clarence H. Holland, an attorney, developed an intimate personal and professional relationship with Fannie Traylor Moses, who was 15 years his senior, in seriously ill health, and an alcoholic.
- During their relationship, Mrs. Moses, with Holland acting as her attorney and without other counsel, used over $31,000 of her own funds to purchase property, with the deed conveying it to herself and Holland as equal co-owners, despite Holland contributing no money.
- Holland, who had authority over Mrs. Moses' bank account, drew checks from it to his own brother and father for a tractor and cattle.
- In 1964, Mrs. Moses contacted an independent, reputable attorney she had never met before to draft a new will.
- Mrs. Moses met with this attorney only once to give instructions to leave the bulk of her $125,000 estate to Holland, revoking a prior will that had favored her elder sister.
- The drafting attorney did not inquire into Mrs. Moses' relationship with Holland or the reasons for excluding her blood relatives, stating he merely acted as a scrivener to put her wishes on paper.
- On May 26, 1964, Mrs. Moses executed the new will. The drafting attorney was not present at the execution.
Procedural Posture:
- An instrument dated 1957 was admitted to probate in common form as the will of Fannie Traylor Moses in the Chancery Court of Hinds County.
- Clarence H. Holland (appellant) petitioned the same court to probate a subsequent 1964 will in solemn form, which named him as the primary beneficiary.
- The beneficiaries of the 1957 will (appellees) contested the 1964 will, alleging undue influence, and filed a cross-bill to cancel Holland's title claim to certain real estate.
- The chancellor (trial court judge) held a bench trial.
- The chancellor found the 1964 will was a product of undue influence, denied its probate, confirmed the 1957 will, and canceled Holland's real estate claim.
- Holland appealed the chancellor's decree 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 a presumption of undue influence invalidate a will that primarily benefits the testator's attorney and intimate partner, when the testator consulted an independent attorney for the will's drafting but that attorney acted merely as a scrivener without providing meaningful counsel regarding the disposition?
Opinions:
Majority - Ethridge, C.J.
Yes, the presumption of undue influence invalidates the will. A confidential relationship existed between Holland (attorney) and Moses (client), enhanced by their intimate personal relationship and her vulnerable physical state. This relationship, combined with suspicious circumstances like Holland's enrichment from the land transaction, created a strong presumption of undue influence. To rebut this presumption, the proponent must show by the 'clearest proof' that the testator acted with full deliberation and independent counsel from one 'entirely devoted to her interest.' The attorney who drafted the will acted as a mere scrivener, transcribing Moses' wishes without providing any meaningful advice or inquiry into the nature of the disposition or her relationship with Holland. Such perfunctory legal service is insufficient to overcome the presumption of undue influence arising from Holland's prior 'antecedent agencies'.
Dissenting - Brady, J.
No, the will should be upheld. The presumption of undue influence did not arise because a confidential relationship alone is insufficient; it requires active participation by the beneficiary in the will's preparation or execution, which Holland did not do. Even if a presumption arose, it was fully rebutted. Mrs. Moses was a competent businesswoman who deliberately sought out an experienced, independent attorney. This attorney, Mr. Shell, confirmed she was of sound mind, knew exactly what she wanted, and was under no outside influence. He provided adequate counsel by inquiring into marital status, children, and potential estate taxes. The majority improperly invalidates a testator's clear intent based on antecedent personal circumstances unrelated to the will's formal and independent execution.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the doctrine of presumed undue influence in wills contests involving fiduciaries. It clarifies that the requirement of 'independent advice' to rebut the presumption is a substantive one, demanding more than the mere mechanical transcription of a testator's wishes by a new attorney. The decision places a heavy evidentiary burden on fiduciaries who benefit from a will, signaling that courts will closely scrutinize the quality of legal counsel to protect vulnerable testators from prior, unseen influence. This precedent makes it more difficult for attorneys or other fiduciaries to uphold bequests from their clients unless they can prove the client received thorough and disinterested advice regarding the disposition.
Unlock the full brief for In re Will of Moses