I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CA- 0 0 7 1 9 - S CT THE ES TAT

E OF J AM ESM . LAUGHTER: RUBYE C. FOS TER
v. MA R J O R I E WI L L I A MS
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 03/ 2008 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. P ERC Y L. LYNCHARD, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: DES OTO COUNTY CHAN CER Y COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: ROY O. P ARKER, J R. AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : KE NNE T H E
. S T OC KT ON NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W I LLS, TRU STS , AN D ESTATES D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 09/ 24/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: 1 0 / 2 9 / 2 0 0 9 ; DE NI E D AND O P I NI ON M O D I FI E D A T PA R A G R A PH S 7, 10, 35 A N D 36 M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E W A L L E R , C .J ., R A N D O L P H A N D C H A N D L E R , J J . W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. R ubye C
. Fost erappea l s t he deci s i on of t he D eSot o C ounty C hance ry C our t gr ant i ng
su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f M a rjo rie W ill iam s. T h e ch a n c e llo r’s o rd e r u p h e ld th e v a lid ity of a wi l l o f J a mes M
. La ug ht e r , W i l l i a ms’ s b r othe r , a ga i ns ta c ha l l e ng e b y Fos t e r . Fos t er
a lso a p p e a ls th e c h a n c e llo r’s o rd e r, en ter e d p rio r to su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, de ter m in in g th a t a pr om i s s ory not e al l egedl y gi ven by Laught ert o Fost erdur i ng thei rm arr i age w as an as s etof L aught er ’ s es t at e.

### Fost er as se rt s that

sheand La

ughte r agre ed to ge t divorce d bec aus e La ughte r wa s 1 

### suf fering f rom respiratory probl em s and pneum onia , and Laught er did not want thedoctors or hospi tals to be ableto see k payme nt from Fost er for the e xte nsive m edi cal proce dure s he was about

to unde rgo. 2 ¶ 2
. F in d in g g e n u in e iss u e s o f m a ter ial fa c t ex ist w ith re sp e c t to th e tes tam e n tar y c a p a c ity of L aught erand pot ent i al undue i nf l uence by W i l l i ams, w e r ever s e and r emand f ora t r i al on the mer i t s as t o these is sues. A l s o, beca us e w e f i nd L aught erm ade a val i d i nt ervi vos g if t of the pr om i s s ory not e t o Fost er , w e r ever s e the deci s i on of the chanc el l orhol di ng thatthe
n o te s h o u ld h a v e b e e n in c lu d e d in L a u g h te r’ s e s ta te . F ACT S & PROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶ 3
. In 2 0 0 3 , L a u g h ter so ld a b u sin e ss h e o w n e d a n d th e lan d o n w h ich it w a s situ a ted to D avi d A dams. A s paym ent , A dams pr ovi ded L aught erw i th a promi s s ory not e f or$100, 000, pay m ent of

w hi ch w as s ecur ed by a de ed of trus t . L aught erand A dams l at eramended the p ro m iss o ry n o te a n d th e s a les c o n tra c t to p ro v id e th a t, u p o n L a u g h ter ’s d e a th o r in a b ili ty to
a c c e p tp a y me n t , a n y r e ma i n i n g p a y me n t s wo u l d b e ma d e t o Ru b y e C. F o s t e r . Bo th Ad a ms
a n d L a u g h te r i n itia le d th e a m e n d m e n ts to th e n o te a n d th e s a le s c o n tr a c t. ¶4. Fost erand Laught erw er e mar r i ed atthe t i m e the s al e and the amendm entw er e m ade. Fost eras s ert s thatL aught erpr es ent ed herw i th the amen ded n ote and the dee d of trus ton their an n iversa ry, V alen ti n e’s D ay of 20 0 4 , an d t o ld he r, “this is yo u r pre sen t. ” T h ere after, Fost err et ai ned pos s es s i on of the document s , keepi ng them atherhom e. ¶5
. O n M ar ch 2, 2005, L aught erand F os t erw er e di vor c e d, a l l e ge dl y f or f i na nc i al
reas on s, bu tthey con t i nu ed to l i ve toget her. O n M arc h 3 , 20 05 , M arj ori e W i l l i am s,

1

### 3

L aught er ’ s si s t er , gotL aught ert o execut e a qui t cl ai m deed, gi vi ng W i l l i ams s ol e ow ner s hi p, fo r o n e d o lla r, o f a lo t jo in tly o w n e d b y L a u g h te r a n d W illia m s . ¶6
. O n M a rc h 4 , 2 0 0 5 , L au g h ter ex ec u ted a w il l i n the o ffi ce s o f his att o rne y , P h il li p S tro u d . T h e w ill n a m e d F o ste r a s e x e c u trix a n d b e q u e a th e d a ll o f L a u g h ter ’s p ro p e rty to F o ste r, ex c e p t th e lo t th a t h e o w n e d jo in tly w ith W ill iam s, th e sa m e lo t h e h a d d e e d e d to W ill iam s th e d a y b e fo re . In th is M a rc h w ill, L a u g h tersp e c ifica lly d e v ise d to F o ste r h is pr operty i nt er es ti n t he deed of t rus t , “t ogetherw i th t he i ndebt ednes s sec ur ed ther eby, w hi ch i s f ur therevi dence d by [ the] Pr om i s s ory N ot e. ” T he m eet i ng w i th S tr oud, atw hi ch Laught er
a n d S tr o u d d is c u s s e d th e w ill a n d L a u g h te r s ig n e d it, w a s v id e o ta p e d
. ¶7. A l s o on M ar ch 4, 2005, L aug hter and Fost er exec ut ed a w arr anty deed, conveyi ng
ow ner s hi p of

L aught er ’ s hom e t o hi m s el f and Fos t er“as joi ntt enant s w i th f ul l r i ghtof
s ur vi vor s hi p and notas t enant s i n com m on. ” W i thi n t he w eek, L aught erw as admi t t ed t o the hos pi t al , and on M ar ch 11, 2005, he gr ant ed pow erof att orney t o W i l l i ams. L aught erw as la te r t ra n s fe rr e d to a n u rs in g h o m e . ¶8
. O n M ar c h 28, 2005, W i l l i ams’ s att or ney, R andy G arner , s entFost era l et t er in stru c tin g h e r to tr a n s fe r h e r in ter e st in th e h o m e d e e d e d to F o ste r o n M a rc h 4 b a c k to L au g h ter. T h e lett er e x p lai n ed that W il li am s an d G arn er “ c a n n o t fin d w h ere [L au g h ter]
r emem ber s everexec ut i ng a dee d gi vi ng you a j oi ntt enanc y . . . t o hi s hom e. ” The l ett er sta ted th a t L a u g h ter h a d s ig n e d th e d e e d a t a tim e w h e n h e w a s “ e x tre m e ly ill a n d u n a b le to handl e hi s a f

f a i r s . ” The l e t t e rs t a t e d tha ti f Fos t e rdi d n otc ompl y, W i l l i a ms woul d p ur s ue le g a l a c tio n .T h e R o b e rt s e s h a v e b e e n id e n tif ie d a s W illia m s ’s g ra n d d a u g h te rs . 2 

### The c hancellor did not expres sly find that t

he not e wa s not

an inter vivo s gift. 3 

### Howeve r, the chance ll or’ s order was in responseto Fos te r’ s m oti on for dec larator

y judgm ent , whi ch a ss erte d that La ughte r ha d give n Foste r thenoteas a vali d inter vivo s gift.

4 ¶9
. Jac k N az ary , a m inist er, v isi ted L a u g h ter in the h o sp it al in A p ri l o f 2 0 0 5
. N az ary pr ovi ded a s w orn af

f i davi ts t at i ng t hatL aught erhad t ol d hi m duri ng the vi s i tthat“nothi ng ha[ d] change d” w i th hi s re l at i ons hi p w i th F os t er . L aught ers t at ed thathe had “ been l ooki ng fo r [ F o s te r] e v e ry d a y [s ic ].” ¶10. I n M ay of 2005, W i l l i ams m ade arr angement s f or another att orney, G er al d C hatham t o as s i s tL aught eri n pr epar i ng a new w i l l
. O n M ay 4, C hatham m etL aught eratthe nur s i ng hom e, w her e Laught erexec ut ed a new w i l l
. I n thi s M ay w i l l , L aught ernamed W i l l i ams as
exec utr i x and beque athed the bal ance of hi s pr om i s s ory not e t o L aur en El i zabe th and K ai t l yn E l i se R ob ert s. L aug hterdev i sed t he restof his p roperty, incl ud i ng his ho m e, t o W i l l i am s. 2 T he meet i ng w i th C hatham, atw hi ch C hatham and L aught erdi s cus s ed the n ew w i l l and L aught ers i gned i t , al s o w as vi deot aped. L aught erdi ed on J ul y 2, 2005. ¶ 1 1
. In S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 5 , F o ste r a n d W ill iam s filed p e tit io n s fo r p ro b a te o f th e M a rc h w ill
a n d th e M a y w ill, r e s p e c tiv e ly . In A u g u s t 2 0 0 6 , th e tw o c a s e s w e re c o m b in e d
. ¶1 2. T hatD ece m ber , Fo s t e rf i l e d a mot i on f

ord ecl ar at or y j udgm entas ki ng t hat t he pr om i s s ory not e be r emoved f r om L aught er ’ s es t at e bec aus e i tw as an i ntervi vos g if t t o h er. Fost eral s o r ef

i l ed an e ar l i erm ot i on aski ng t he courtt o vi ew the vi deot apes thatw er e t aken atthe ex ecuti o n o f t he tw o w i l l s. O n A pri l 13 , 20 07 , the ch ancell or denied bo th m oti on s, fin d in g th a t th e m o tio n re g a rd in g th e v id e o tap e s w a s p re m a tu re a n d th a t th e p ro m iss o ry n o te

“ is in fa c t a n a s s e t o f t h e E s ta te o f J a m e s M . L a u g h te r . . . .” 3T h u s, th e c h a n c e llo r’s o rd e r fin d in g th e p ro m iss o ry n o te to b e a n a ss e t o f L a u g h ter ’s e sta te

i m pl i edl y r ej ect ed Fos t er ’ s ar gum entthatthe not e w as an i ntervi vos g if t. 

### 5 ¶ 1 3
. O n A u g u st 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 , W ill iam s m o v e d fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t to c o n firm th e v a lid ity
o f th e M a y w ill . A h e a rin g w a s h e ld o n S e p tem b e r 5 , a t w h ich C h a th a m an d W ill iam s b o th tes tified . O n S e p tem b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 , th e ch a n c e llo r g ra n ted the m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T h e re a ft e r, F o s te r f

ile d a m o tio n fo r a n e w h e a ri n g , w h ic h th e c h a n c e llo r d e n ie d
. ¶14. O n M ar ch 7, 2008, W i l l i ams w as appoi nt ed exe cutr i x of L aught er ’ s es t at e pur s uant t o th e M a y wi l l
. W i l l i a ms i mme d i a t e l y mo v e d t o s tr i k e F o s t e r ’ s o r i g i n a l pr o b a t e c l a i m,
w h ic h m o tio n w a s g ra n te d o n M a rc h 1 9 , fo llo w in g a h e a ri n g . ¶15. O n A pr i l 3, 2008, the cha ncel l ori s s ued an order enjoi ning F ost erf r om f i l i ng any fu rth e r m o tio n s, e x c e p t a n a p p e a l. T h u s, o n A p ril 2 4 , F o ste r a p p e a led , as k in g th is C o u rt to compel thatthe vi deot apes of the tw o w i l l s be i ncl uded i n the r ecor d on appea l and vi ew ed b y the C o u rt . T h is C o u rtd en ied th e m o ti o n , ho lding th at i t n ee d ed to b e fil ed in the ch an ce ry
court . Fost erdi d s o, and on N ov em ber13, 2008, the cha ncel l ordeni ed the mot i on on the gr ound thatno pr operpr edi cat e had be en l ai d f orthe t apes ’ i ntr oduct i on. ¶ 1 6
. F o s t e r a p p e a l s th e c h a n c e ry c o u r t ’ s g r a n t o f s u mma ry j u d g me n t i n f a v o r o f W i l l i a ms conf i r m i ng the val i di ty of

the M ay w i l l
. F ost eras s ert s thats um m ary j udgm entw as
err oneous l y gr ant ed becaus e: ( 1) ther e i s a genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

actconce rni ng L aught er ’ s t es t ament ary capa ci ty w hen he e xecut ed the M ay w i l l ; ( 2) ther e i s a genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fa ctre gar di ng w hetherW i l l i ams undul y i nf l uence d L aught eri n the maki ng of the M ay w i l l ; ( 3) the cha ncel l orerr ed i n re f us i ng t o adm i tt he vi deot apes ; and (4) the cha ncel l or
err ed in l i m i t i ng argum ent atthe sum m ary j ud gm ent he ari ng t o fi ft een m i nu t es.W il li am s h as m o v ed this C o u rtto stri k e p o rt ion s o f F o ster’s brief an d rec o rd 4 e x c e rp t s , a l l e g i n g th a tth e y c o n t a i n i n f o r ma t i o n t h a twa s n o tp r o p e r l y b e f o r e th e c o u r tb e l o w. W e re se rv e d d e c isio n o n th a t m o tio n fo r o u r f in a l o p in io n in th is c a se . T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t p o rt io n s o f a b ri e f t h a t c ite e v id e n c e n o t in th e re c o rd m u s t b e s tr ic k e n . B ro w n v . S ta te , 965 So. 2d 1023, 1027 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng P u lp h u s v . S ta te , 78 2 S o. 2d 12 20 , 12 24 (M i ss. 2 0 0 1 )). H o w ev er, in a ss e ss in g the m erit s o f th is ap p ea l, w e h av e d eterm ined that ev ery evi dent i ary m att erthi s C our tci t es her ei n i s i ncl uded i n t he recor d and w as f i l ed w i th the ch an ce ry c o u rtw ell be fore th e ch an ce ll o r’s d ec isi o n g ran ti n g su m m ary jud g m en t. F u rth er, “ a s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n is b a s e d o n th e p le a d in g s a n d a n y a ff id a v its , d e p o s itio n s , and 

### 6 A d d iti o n a lly , F o ste r a ss e rts th a t th e c h a n c e llo r e rre d in d e c id in g th a t th e p ro m iss o ry n o te
s houl d be i ncl uded i n L aught er ’ s es t at e and thus w as notan i ntervi vos g if t to h e r. DI S CU S S I ON I . W het her s um m ary j udgm ent w as grant ed err oneousl y. ¶1 7
. O u r app ell ate stand ard for r ev iew ing a trial c o u rt’s g ra n t o r d e n ial o f su m m ary j udgm enti s the s ame st andar d as thatof the tr i al courtunderR ul e 56( c) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R u le s o f C iv il P ro c e d u re . W e e m p loy a d e n o v o stan d ard o f rev iew o f a tri al co u rt ’s gra n t or d en ial o f a su m m ary jud g m en t and ex am ine a ll the e v iden ti a ry m att ers b efo re i t–ad m i ssi on s i n p l eadings, answ ers t o int err og at ori es, dep osi t i on s, aff i dav i t s, e tc. T h e e v id e n c e m u st b e v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e p a rty agai ns tw hom the mot i on ha s be en m ade. I f , i n thi s vi ew , ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

act , and the movanti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof law , su m m a ry ju d g m e n t sh o u ld fo rth w ith b e e n te re d fo r th e m o v a n t. O therw i s e, the mot i on s houl d be deni ed. B ullock v. L i

f e Ins . Co. , 872 So. 2d 658, 660 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng Hurdle v. Hol low ay , 848 So. 2d 18 3, 1 85 ( M i s s . 2 00 3) )
. Conc urr e nt l y, a tthe tr i a l
- c ou r tl e ve l , when a mot i on f or
su m m ary jud g m en t i s m ad e a n d su p p o rt ed , “a n ad v erse p arty m ay n o t r est u p o n the m ere
a lleg a tio n s o r d e n ials se t fo rth in h is p lea d in g s, b u t h is re sp o n se . . . m u st s e t fo rth sp e c ific fac ts sho w ing that there is a g en u ine issu e fo r tri al. ” M iss. R
. C iv. P. 56 (e). 4othe rf

orm s of e v i de nc e relati v e to th e m erit s o f th e c h all en g ed claim o r de fen se th at are avai labl e atthe t i m e the m ot i on is m ade
. ” M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 56 cmt
. ( emphasi s added)
. T he c h a n c e llo r re c o g n ize d a s m u c h w h e n , at th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t h e a rin g , h e sta ted th a t h is deci s i on w oul d be bas ed notonl y on the pl eadi ngs and the t es t i m ony of f er ed atthe hea r i ng, b u t o n “ a ll m a tters file d ” in th e c a u se . T h u s , a ll th e s o u rc e s re lied u p o n h e re in w e re a v a ilab le t o the cha ncel l or and pre s um abl y w er e cons i der ed by hi m w hen maki ng hi s deci s i on on W ill iam s’s m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. W ill iam s’s m o tio n to strik e , the re fo re , is d is m is s e d a s m o o t. 

### 7 A
. W h ethe r the re is a g en u ine issu e o f m a teri a l f

a c t con ce rn ingL a u g h ter’s tes ta m e n ta ry c a

p a c ity w h e n h e ex e c u tedth e Ma y w ill
. ¶18. T he bur den of

pr ovi ng t es t ament ary capa ci ty i s on the pr oponent s of the w i l l , w ho can pr es enta pr i m a f

aci e ca s e s i m pl y by of

f er i ng i nt o evi dence the w i l l a nd the r ecor d of pr obat e. In r e L a st W

ill a n d T e sta m e n t a n d

E sta te o f Sm ith , 722 So. 2d 606, 610- 11 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng I n re E s tate of

E dw ar ds , 5 2 0 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 0 , 1 3 7 2
- 7 3 ( M i s s . 1 9 8 8 ) )
. On c e a p r i ma fa c ie c a se h a s b e e n e sta b lish e d , the b u rd e n o f g o in g fo rw a rd sh ifts to th e c o n tes tan ts to
o v e rc o m e th e p ri m a fa c ie c a s e . I d. at611. ¶19. Si nce the M ay w i l l has been pr oper l y admi t t ed t o pr obat e, W i l l i am s has pre s ent ed
s uch a pr i m a f

aci e ca s e. T her ef

or e, the bur den s hi f

t s t o F os t ert o s how thatL aught erl acke d te s ta m e n ta ry c a p a c ity a t th e tim e o f t h e w ill. 20. T es t ament ary capa ci ty i s det erm i ned bas ed on thr ee f act or s : ( 1) w hetherthe t es t at or had the abi l i ty atthe t i m e of the w i l l t o under s t and and appr eci at e the ef f ect s of hi s act ; ( 2)
w h e th e r th e tes tato r h a d th e a b ili ty a t th e tim e o f th e w ill to u n d e rsta n d th e n a tu ra l o b jec ts or pers on s t o r ece i ve hi s bounty and thei rr el at i on t o hi m ; and ( 3) w hetherthe t es t at orw as
c a p a b le o f d e ter m in in g a t th e tim e o f th e w ill w h a t d isp o sitio n h e d e sire d to m a k e o f h is p ro p e rt y . I

n re E s tate of

Hol m es , 961 So. 2d 674, 679 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng Sm ith , 722 So.

### Alth ou ghthis letter is likelyin admissib le hearsayandno pro per p redicate w as laid 5 

### for it s introduction, the rewas no obje ction to it s be ing ref erenc ed in thec ourt

be low. Als o, neith er partyhas o bjectedto it o n ap peal, an d th is C o urtd oes n ot ad dress su ch issu es sua spo nte . See, e.g
. Dero uen v. Sta te , 994 So. 2d 748, 750-51 ( Mis s. 2008) ( appe ll at e revi ew of he ar say re quires cont em poraneous obje ction)
.

8 2d at610). H ow ever , evi dence need notfa l l squar el y underany one of thes e f act or s i n or der to b e p e rt in e n t. Se e , e .g ., Sm ith , 722 So. 2d at611. ¶ 2 1
. E x c lu d in g a lleg a tio n s b a se d o n th e v id e o tap e s, F o ste r h a s ra ise d th re e a rg u m e n ts to
re b u t th e p re su m p tio n th a t L a u g h terp o ss e ss e d tes tam e n tar y c a p a c ity . F irst, F o ste r a ss e rts t hat t he l ett ers enton behal f of W i l l i ams by heratt orney, G arner , dat ed M ar ch 28, 2005,
a d m itt e d L a u g h ter ’s la c k o f c a p a c ity . T h e G a rn e r le tter d e s c ri b e d L a u g h tera s “ e x tre m e ly i l l and unabl e t o handl e hi s aff ai r s , ” and i ts t at ed thatL aught erw as unabl e t o r emem ber d ee d ing h is ho m e to F o ster, as a joint t en an t w ith h im self on ly three w ee k s ea rl ier. 5 ¶ 2 2
. T h e m e re f

a c t t h a t so m e o n e is to o ill to h a n d le h is a ffa irs d o e s n o t in a n d o f itse lf
re n d e r h im m e n ta lly in c o m p e te n t o r v o id o f t e s ta m e n ta ry c a p a c ity
. See L ee v. L ee , 337 So. 2d 713, 715 ( M i s s . 1976) (ci t i ng T h o m a s v . H

a m lin , 404 S. W
. 2d 569 ( T enn. C t . A pp. 1 9 6 4 )). H o w e v e r, L a u g h ter ’s a lleg e d in a b ili ty to re m e m b e r d e e d in g jo in t o w n e rsh ip o f h is hom e t o Fost eronl y thr ee w eeks ear l i eri s evi dence of a pot ent i al l ack of

capa ci ty. T he G a rn e r le tter’ s im p lica tio n th a t L a u g h terh a d sig n ed the d ee d o n ly b ec a u se h e w a s “ e x tre m e ly i l l and unabl e t o handl e hi s af f ai r s ” appa r ent l y w as m ade t o s how thatthe deed of M ar ch 4, 2 0 0 5 , w a s in v a lid b e c a u s e o f L a u g h te r’ s in c a p a c ity
. ¶23. Second, Fos t erpoi nt s outthatthe M ay w i l l “compl et el y change d the di s tr i but i on of L a u g h ter ’s a ss e ts” fro m th e M a rc h w ill. T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t a p rio r w ill , if m a d e a t a tim e w h e n th e tes tato r p o ss e ss e d tes tam e n tar y c a p a c ity , m a y b e a d m itt e d in to e v id e n c e to

### 9

s h o w a la c k o f t e s ta m e n ta ry c a p a c ity a t th e tim e o f a s u b s e q u e n t w ill. P er r y v. A ldr i ch , 196 S o . 2 d 5 2 1 , 5 2 5 (M iss . 1 9 6 7 ). P rio r sta tem e n ts b y th e tes tato r m a y b e sim ilarly re lev a n t. Moor e v. P arks , 1 2 2 M iss. 3 0 1 , 3 3 2 , 8 4 S o . 2 3 0 , 2 3 7 (19 2 0 ). ¶24. H er e, W i l l i am s has no t for m al l y chal l enged L aught er ’ s compet ency at the t i m e he
exec ut ed the M ar ch w i l l
. H ow ever , the M arch w i l l w as exec ut ed on the s ame day, M ar ch 4, as the dee d of Laught er ’ s hom e t o Fost er . A s di s cus s ed above , the G arnerl ett eri m pl i es th a t t h e d e e d is in v a lid b e c a u se o f L a u g h ter ’s p o o r h e a lth a t th a t ti m e . T h u s, it is p o ss ib le thatW i l l i ams i m pl i edl y c hal l enges the val i di ty of the M ar ch w i l l beca us e i tw as exec ut ed on th e s a m e d a y a s th e d e e d
. ¶25. A ny s uch chal l enge, how ever , w oul d be di s i ngenuous . W i l l i ams does notchal l enge L aught er ’ s capa ci ty t o execut e the qui t cl ai m deed t o W i l l i ams, done onl y one day be f or e, on M a rc h 3 . P re su m a b ly , an y a lleg e d in a b ili ty o f L a u g h te r to a p p re c iate th e e ffe c ts o f h is M a rc h 4 w ill a ls o w o u ld in v a lid a te th e M a rc h 3 q u itc la im d e e d to W illia m s . ¶2 6
. L a u g h ter’s M arc h w il l w as en ti rely d if feren t from his M a y w ill . T h e M a rc h w ill d e v i s e d n e a r l y a l l o f

L a u g h t e r ’ s p r o p e r ty t o F o s t e r , wh e r e a s th e M a y wi l l , d r a f t e d o n l y two
m o n ths later, d ev ised n ea rl y all o f L au g h ter’s pro p erty to W il li am s. T h ese ch an g es w ere
m a d e e v e n th o u g h Ja c k N a z a ry re c o u n ted th a t w h e n h e v isited L a u g h terin th e h o sp ital in A p ri l of 2 0 0 5 , L au g h ter stat ed tha t “n o thing h ad ch an g ed ” w ith h is r elati o n sh ip w ith F o ster. ¶2 7. T he di f

f er ence s betw een the M ar ch a nd M ay w i l l s r ai s e ques t i ons r egar di ng L aught er ’ s capa ci ty. T he dr amat i c ex t ent of the cha nges t o hi s w i l l m ay i ndi cat e that L au g h ter did n o t r em em b er the p ri o r w il l or u n d erstan d h o w the p rop o sed ch an g es w o u ld af f ecti tl egal l y. T hus , the M ar ch w i l l , a s w el l a s othere vi dence of L aught er ’ s i nt ent , s uchO th e r j u ri s d ic tio n s h a v e c o m m o n ly h e ld th a t s u c h e rr o rs p ro v id e “ n o g ro u n d
. . . 6 fo r c o n tr o v e rs y o v e r” th e is s u e o f t e s ta m e n ta ry c a p a c ity
. Fis s el v. Fis s el , 105 N
. E
. 756, 757 (Ill. 19 1 4 ) (a ttem p t to d e v ise e n tire f a rm in w h ich tes tato r o n ly o w n e d a h a lf-in ter e st); acco rd State v. G oodm an , 1 8 1 S .W . 3 1 2 , 3 2 0 (T e n n . 1 9 1 5 ) (w ill re fe re n c e d “ re a l es ta te ” in its re s id u a ry c la u s e , w h e n te s ta to r o w n e d n o n e ). B uts ee Mir covich v. Mir covich , 703 S. W
. 2d 3 2 5, 32 6 (T ex. A pp . 19 85 ) ( at t em pt t o b equ eath p roperty n o longer ow ned ci t ed b y ex pe rt as e v iden ce o f bra in d am ag e). 

### 10 as the N aza ry af

f i davi tand the am end m entt o the pr om i s s ory not e, cr eat e a que s t i on of
m a te ri a l f

a c t a s to L a u g h te r’ s te s ta m e n ta ry c a p a c ity a t th e tim e h e e x e c u te d th e M a y w ill. ¶28. Fost eraddi t i onal l y ar gues thatL aught erdi d no th ave t he abil i ty t o appr eci at e the ef f ect s of hi s M ay w i l l beca us e he de vi s ed s ever al i t ems thats he cl ai m s he did notow n. W h ethe r an a tt em p ted d ev ise o f u n o w n ed p rop erty is en o u g h to ca ll into q u esti o n a test ator’s t est am entary cap aci ty is app arent ly a n is sue of f i rs ti m press i on i n M i ssi ssi pp i
. B ecause 6 F o ste r h a s p re se n ted o th e r e v id e n c e su ffic ien t to ra ise a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t, h o w e v e r, w e n e e d n o t d e c id e th is is s u e a t th is tim e . ¶29. T aki ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o Fost er , as w e must , w e f i nd that the
ev iden ce p rese n ted is en o u g h to raise a g en u ine issue o f m aterial fac t reg ard ing L au g h ter’s test am en tary c ap ac ity at th e ti m e o f th e M ay w il l. T h e c h an ce ll o r’s g ra n t o f su m m ary j ud gm ent theref

ore w as erroneou s. B
. Wh e th e rth e r e is a g e n u i n e is s u e o f ma t e r i a lf

a c tr eg a r d i n gwh e th e rWi l l i a ms u n du ly in flu e n c e d L a u g h terin th e m a k in go f th e Ma y w ill
. ¶ 3 0
. F o ste r a rg u e s th a t L a u g h terh a d a c o n fid e n tial re latio n sh ip w ith W ill iam s. If tru e , th is coul d c r e a t e a pr e s umpt i on of un du e i nf

l ue nc e , w hi c h W i l l i a ms woul d the n h a ve t o r ebut
w ith c le a r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e . In r e E s ta te o f R e id , 825 So. 2d 1, 5 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng I n re E s tate of

D abney , 7 4 0 S o . 2 d 9 1 5 , 9 2 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )).

### Whilefac tor s 2, 3, 4, and 7 ref er to the party who al le gedly unduly influenc ed the 7 

### te st ator, both t ext

ualint er pre tati on ( i. e. , the us e of the t er m “ othe rs ” rather

than “anothe r” ) and c as el aw indic at e that

the firs t fa ctor can inc ludecareby any pe rs on, not jus t t he pe rs on again st wh om un du e in fl u en ce is claimed. See Dabney , 740 So. 2d at 919 (“ Als o, the te st atri x had to be t ake n careof by other individuals [than the be nef ic iary] [. ] ”)
. 11 ¶31. A conf

i dent i al r el at i ons hi p i s “a r el at i ons hi p betw een tw o peopl e i n w hi ch one per s on is i n a p o sit ion to e x e rcise d o m inan t i n fl u en ce u p o n the o ther b ec au se o f th e latt er’s d e p e n d e n c y o n th e f

o rm e r a ri s in g e ith e r f

ro m w e a k n e s s o f m in d o r b o d y , o r t h ro u g h tru s t[.]” I d. ( quot i ng Hendricks v. Jam es , 4 2 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 4 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 )). W h ethe r a
con fi den t i al rel at i on shi p ex i st s i s det erm i ned based o n the f oll ow i ng fact ors: ( 1) w hetherone per s on has t o be t aken c ar e of by other s , ( 2) w hetherone p e rso n m a in tain s a c lo se re latio n sh ip w ith a n o th e r, (3 ) w h e th e r o n e p e rso n is pr ovi ded tr ans por t at i on and has thei rm edi cal c ar e pr ovi ded f orby another , ( 4) w h e th e r o n e p e rso n m a in tain s jo in t ac c o u n ts w ith a n o th e r, (5 ) w h e th e r o n e is phys i cal l y orm ent al l y w eak, ( 6) w hetherone i s of adva nced a ge orpoor heal th, and ( 7) w hetherther e exi s t s a pow erof att orney betw een the one a nd an o ther. I n r e E s tate of

Hol m es , 961 So. 2d 674, 680 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng W rig h t v. R o b e rts , 797 So. 2 d 9 9 2 , 9 9 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 )). ¶32
. H ere, W i l l i am s has con ceded that Lau gh t er w as car ed forby o thers. A tvari ou s t i m es, esp ec ial ly d u ri n g the last few m o n ths o f his li fe, L au g h ter w as c are d for b y W il li am s, F o ster, the hos pi t al , and the nur s i ng hom e. 7 ¶3 3
. W il li am s also h ad a clos e relati o n sh ip to L au g h ter. W il li am s w as L au g h ter’s si ster, and s he t es t i f

i ed thats he “ha d al w ays l ooked af t erhi m beca us e [ s he] w as the olde rof the tw o, and he ha d been [ her ] r es pons i bi l i ty af t er[ thei r ] pa r ent s pa s s ed aw ay t o hel p as m uch
as [ s he] coul d. ” See W

r i ght , 797 So. 2d at998 ( cl os e r el at i ons hi p f ound on the bas i s of

bei ng
r el at ed and ha vi ng had a l ong f r i ends hi p)
. W i l l i am s al so t es t i f i ed thats he had br ought

### 12

L aught erf

ood w hen he w as si ck pr i ort o hi s ent er i ng t he hospi t al , and t hataf t erhe ent er ed th e h o s p ita l, s h e s ta y e d w ith h im th e re . ¶34. A l s o, ther e i s evi dence s ugges t i ng that L aught er w as phys i cal l y and m ent al l y w eak. T he G arnerl ett ers t at ed thatLaught erw as “ very i l l a nd una bl e t o ha ndl e hi s af f ai r s ” and ha d been s i nce the t i m e of

hi s di vor ce f

r om Fost er . A s di s cus s ed above , the l ett eral s o i ndi cat ed that L au g h ter co u ld no t rem em b er de ed ing a j o int o w n ersh ip i n his ho m e to F o ster a m ere tw e n ty -f o u r d a y s e a rl ie r. ¶ 3 5
. L a u g h terw a s n e a rly eig h ty y e a rs o ld a n d in p o o r h e a lth at th e ti m e o f th e M a y w ill , as w el l
. W i l l i ams conc eded a s m uch. L aught erhad bee n hos pi t al i zed f ortw o m onths and
w as i n the nur s i ng hom e, w her e he w oul d pas s aw ay tw o m onths l at er . I ti s al s o undi s put ed th a t L a u g h te r h a d g iv e n p o w e r o f a tto rn e y to W illia m s . ¶3 6
. In th is case , th ere fore , at least f ive o f th e sev en fac tors u sed to d eterm ine w h ethe r a
c o n fid e n tial re latio n sh ip e x ists a re p re se n t. T h e re is e v id e n c e th a t L a u g h terw a s p h y sic a lly and / or m ental l y w eak, of adv anced age, and i n p oo r heal th. H e w as t aken care of by others , a n d h a d g i v e n p o we ro f

a t t o rn e y t o W i l l i a ms , wh o ma i n t a i n e d a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p wi th h i m. T her ef or e, w e f i nd thatther e i s a ge nui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

actr egar di ng w hetherL aught er
wa s s u f f i c i e n t l y d e p e n d a n to n W i l l i a ms t o c r e a t e a c o n f i d e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e twe e n th e m. ¶37. T he m er e exi s t ence of a conf i dent i al r el at i ons hi p, how ever , i s not i n i t s el f s uf f i ci ent to ra is e a p re s u m p tio n o f u n d u e in fl u e n c e . W r i ght , 797 So. 2d at999 ( quot i ng Cr of t v. A lder , 2 3 7 M iss . 7 1 3 , 7 2 3 -2 4 , 1 1 5 S o . 2 d 6 8 3 , 6 8 6 (1 9 5 9 )). S u c h a p re su m p tio n w o u ld a rise o n ly i n cert ai n ci r cumst ance s . T hes e ci r cumst ance s ar e:

### 13

w her e the benef

i ci ary has been a ct i vel y conce rned i n s om e w ay w i th the p re p a ra tio n o r e x e c u tio n o f th e w ill [;] o r w h e re th e re latio n sh ip is c o u p led w ith s om e s us pi ci ous ci r cumst ance s , such as m ent al i nf i r m i ty of the t es t at or ; or w h e re th e b e n e fic iar y in th e c o n fid e n tial re latio n w a s a c tiv e d ire c tly in p re p a rin g th e w ill o r p ro c u rin g its e x e c u tio n , an d o b tain e d u n d e r it a su b sta n tial b e n e fit. Cro ft , 2 3 7 M iss. at 72 3 -24 , 1 1 5 S o . 2 d at 68 6 (19 5 9 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). ¶3 8
. In this ca se, W il li am s w as n o t ac ti v ely inv o lved in the ex ec u ti o n o f the M ay w il l. In f act , s he w as noteven i n the r oom w hen i tw as exec ut ed. B utthi s does notend the i nqui ry. T h e G a rn e r le tter’ s s tate m e n ts th a t L a u g h terw a s “ e x tre m e ly ill a n d u n a b le to h a n d le h is af f ai r s ” and thatLaught erdi d notr emem berde edi ng hi s home t o Fos t ers ug gestt hat Lau gh t e rmay h a ve l a c ke d men t a l c a pa c i ty a s e a r l y a s M a r c h 2 8. Thi s i s e vi de nc e tha t L a u g h te r m a y h a v e h a d a m e n ta l in fi rm ity
. ¶ 3 9
. M o reo v er, C h atha m test if ied th a t h e w a s o rig in a lly c o n tac ted b y W ill iam s, v ia G arn er,
a n d th a t W ill iam s h a d m a d e th e a rra n g e m e n ts fo r C h a th a m to m e e t w ith L a u g h terto e x e c u te th e M a y w ill
. T h is, co u p led w ith the ex ten t of W ill iam s’s b e n e fits u n d e r th e M a y w ill, is
cons i s t entw i th w hatw e have t erm ed “s us pi ci ous ci r cumst ance s . ” See I n r e Las t W il l and T e sta m e n t a n d

E sta te o f Sm ith , 722 So. 2d 606, 612 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng In re E state of H a rr is , 5 3 9 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 0 , 1 0 4 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 )) ( b en eficiari es d rov e testatri x to the att o rne y ’s
o ff ic e ). ¶40. T her ef

or e, vi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i gh t m ost favorabl e t o Fost er , w e f i nd that
s uf f i ci ente vi dence w as pr es ent ed s uch thatther e i s a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al f

actr egar di ng
w hetherL aught erand W i l l i ams had a conf i dent i al r el at i ons hi p and w hetherL aught erw as thu s und uly i nfl uen ced b y W i l l i am s.

### 14

C
. W hetherthe chanc el l orer r ed i n ref us i ng t o adm i tthe vi deotapes s ubm i t t ed by Fost er. ¶4 1. Fost ercl ai m s t hatt he chanc el l ore rr e d i n r e f us i ng t o a dmi tthe vi de ot a pe s of t he
sess i on s i n w hich Lau gh t er execu t ed the M arch and M ay w i l l s. Fo st er cont end s that these t apes demonstr at e the det er i or at i on of L aught er ’ s heal th and hel p t o pr ove hercl ai m thatthe M a y w ill is in v a lid d u e to a la c k o f t e s ta m e n ta ry c a p a c ity a n d /o r u n d u e in fl u e n c e . ¶ 4 2
. A tr ia l ju d g e is g ra n te d “ b ro a d d is c re tio n ” in h is e v id e n tia ry d e te rm in a tio n s . Jones
v. S ta te , 920 So. 2d 465, 475 ( M i s s . 2006)
. T hi s C our tw i l l notoverturn s uch a de t erm i nat i on unl es s the j udge ab used his di s cr et i on t o s uch an e xt entas t o be pr ej udi ci al t o one of the p a rtie s . Cope land

v. Cope land , 904 So. 2d 1066, 1073 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng Stew ar t v. S tew art , 6 4 5 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 9 , 1 3 2 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 )). ¶43. B ef

or e a vi deot ape m ay be admi t t ed i nt o evi dence , the party att empt i ng t o i ntr oduce i tm us tpr oper l y authent i cat e i t . T o do t hi s , the pr oponentof the t ape mustpr ove thr ee el ement s : “[ r ] el evanc y of the s ubj ectm att ert o the i s s ues , i dent i ty of the s ubj ectm att er , and th a t th e m o v in g p ic tu re s p re s e n t a n a c c u ra te a n d fa ith fu l r e p re s e n ta tio n o f t h e s c e n e s fi lm e d .” P itt m an v. Mis s . P ow er& L i ght Co. , 36 8 So
. 2d 23 8, 24 0 ( M i s s . 19 79 ) ( qu ot i ng B ar ham
v. N o w e ll , 2 4 3 M is s . 4 4 1 , 4 4 9 , 1 3 8 S o . 2 d 4 9 3 , 4 9 5 (1 9 6 2 ))
. ¶44. W e f

i nd thatFost erf

ai l ed t o pr oper l y r ai s e thi s i s s ue on appeal
. In he rbr i ef , Fost er does notr ef

er ence any author i ty i n s uppor tof he rc ont ent i on thatthe t apes s houl d have be en admi t t ed; i ndeed, she doe s noteven ment i on thei rexcl us i on i n the “A r gum ent ” s ect i on of her appel l at e b ri ef. T he onl y ar gum entFost erm akes as t o thi s i s s ue i s i n herr epl y br i ef , and th e re , h e r o n ly c itatio n to a u th o rity is fo r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t v id e o tap e s a re h e lp fu l inT he onl y evi dence i n the r ecor d pert ai ni ng t o the t apes ’ authent i ci ty i s the s ubpoena 8 demandi ng the M ar ch t ape f r om the att orney w ho r ecor ded i t . O nl y one M i s s i s s i ppi c as e has been f ound i n w hi ch a pa r ty w as pe r m i t t ed t o a uthent i cat e evi dence us i ng a s ubpoena, and i n thatcas e, t he subpoe na w as corr obor at ed by t he t es t i m ony of the pol i ce of f i cerw ho s erved it. S e ig frie d v. S ta te , 8 6 9 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 0 , 1 0 4 6 (M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). 

### 15 d e te rm in in g t h e v a li d it y o f a w ill. T h u s , w e a re n o t r e q u ir e d to a d d re s s th is is s u e . See Sh avers v. Sh avers , 982 So. 2d 397, 401 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng E lli s v . E lli s , 651 So. 2d 1068, 1 0 7 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 5 ))
. ¶45. H ad this i ssue been prope r l y r ai s ed, i t w oul d not change the r es ul t . T he cha ncel l or i ndi cat ed thathe w as notexcl udi ng the t apes on thei rm er i t s , butr atherbeca us e a pr oper pr edi cat e had notbe en l ai d f orthei ri ntr oduct i on. Fost erf ai l ed t o pr ovi de any e vi dence that th e tap e s s h e p ro v id e d w e re w h a t sh e c laim e d th e y w e re . S in c e F o s te r d id n o t p ro p e rly 8 authent i cat e the t apes orpr ovi de any e vi dence thatthey w er e pr oper l y s ubm i t t ed, the chanc el l ordi d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on i n hol di ng thatno pr operpr edi cat e had be en l ai d f or th e irin tr o d u c tio n . ¶4 6
. S ince w e a re re m a n d in g this ca se, h o w ev er, this fi n d ing d o es n o t p rejud ice F o ster. W e a re rem an d ing this cau se fo r a d eterm ination as to w h e th er L au g h ter ha d test am en tary
c a pa c i ty w he n he e xe c ut e d the M a y w i l l a nd whethe rLa ug ht e rwas u nd ul y i nf l uence d by W i l l i ams atthe t i m e of

the M ay w i l l
. O n r emand, t her ef or e, the admi s s i bi l i ty of the t apes
w i l l be s ubj ectt o the r el evanc e and a uthent i cat i on r equi r ement s s etf or th i n the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence
. D
. W hether the chance l l or er r ed i n l i m i t i ng ar gum ent at the s um m ar

y j udgm ent hea ri ngt o fi

f t een m i nu t es.

### 16

¶47. Fost eral s o cont ends t hatatt he hear i ng on s um m ary j udgm ent , t he chance l l orerr ed in lim iti n g e a c h sid e ’s a rg u m e n t to fifte e n m in u tes . H o w e v e r, th is iss u e w a s n o t p ro p e rly p re se rv e d fo r a p p e a l. It is w e ll-es tab lish e d th a t a c o n tem p o ra n e o u s o b jec tio n is re q u ire d in
o rd e r to p re s e rv e a n is s u e fo r a p p e a l. See B a rn e tt v. S ta te , 725 So. 2d 797, 801 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng Cre n sh a w v. S ta te , 5 2 0 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 , 1 3 4 -5 (M is s . 1 9 8 8 ))
. ¶4 8
. F o ster did n o t r aise this issue un ti l m o re th an si x m o n ths a ft er the h ea ri n g o n su m m ary j udgm ent . Fost ers t at ed t o the chan cel l orm any t i m es atthe hea r i ng thats he w as w orr i ed abouthert i m e runni ng out , butatno poi ntd uri ng t he pr ocee di ngs di d Fost erobj ectt o the tim e lim its se t b y th e c h a n c e llo r. T h u s, F o ste r is b a rre d fro m a rg u in g th is iss u e o n a p p e a l. I I . W he t he r t he pr om i s s or y no t e c ons t i t ut e d an in ter vi vos gi f t t o F os t er. ¶49. T he chanc el l or ’ s or der i n thi s cas e di d not expr es s l y addr es s w hether the not e w as an i ntervi vos gi f

t . I ns t ead, the cha ncel l ors i m pl y hel d thatthe not e “is i n f actan as s etof [L a u g h ter ’s e sta te].” T h is ru lin g n e c e ss a rily re jec ted F o ste r’s c laim th a t th e p ro m iss o ry n o te
w as an i ntervi vos g ift, w h ich is a q u e stio n re g a rd in g a p p lica tio n o f th e law . T h u s, w e a p p ly
a d e n o v o s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . I n re E s tate of

Farm erex r el

. Farm er , 964 So. 2d 498, 499 (M is s . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶50. A pa r ty a t t empt i ng t o pr ove thatan i nt ervi vos gi f tw as m ade musts how the f ol l ow i ng by cl earand convi nci ng evi dence : ( 1) thatthe donorw as com pet entt o m ake a gi f t ; ( 2) that the donat i on w as a vol unt ary actand the donorhad donat i ve i nt ent ; ( 3) thatthe gi f tm us tbe compl et e and notcondi t i onal ; ( 4) thatdel i very w as m ade; and ( 5) thatthe gi f tw as ir re v o c a b le
. I

n re E s tate of

L adner , 909 So. 2d 1051, 1054 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng In re E sta te

### This is therulefor gi ft s of promis sor

y note s, whic h are di stingui she d from gi ft s of 9 

### bank draf ts and a cc ounts . For

thefunds se cured by thedraf t or ac count

to be trans fe rred a s an inter vivosgif t, not only mus t t

he draf t or thebank pa ssbook be trans fe rred but theac tual fun ds mu st be p assed as w ell. Greer v. Hampt on, 2 4 0 So. 2d 253, 255-256 (Miss. 1970) (c iting 

### Pace , 6 5 S o . at 27 4 )). A lso, th is ru le do es n o t affect th e re q u ir em en ts f o r 

### del ive ry f

or value , i. e. “ne goti ation ,” of a promis sor y notethat i s m adepaya

ble“to theorde r of

” the payee . Negotiati on of s uch a

noteto a re cipie nt require s not

only de liver

y to t he rec ipi ent

but proper indor se me nt by t

he payeeas wel l. Mis s. Code Ann. § 75-3- 201 (Re v. 2002)
. 17 of Hol low ay , 515 So. 2d 1217, 1223 ( M i s s . 1987), super cede d on othergr ounds by s t atut e, M iss. C o d e A n n . § 8 1 -5-6 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ) (g o v ern ing p ay m en t t o o n e o w n er o f j o int de p o sit s)). ¶5 1. D el i very a nd r e l i nq ui s hmen to f c on tr ol a r e r e qu i s i t e s o f an i nt ervi vos gi f

t . “A del i ve ry e i the ra c tua l , c on s truc t i ve , o rs ymbol i c a l i s a n e l e mente s s e nt i a l t o the v a l i di t y of a[ n i nt ervi vos gi f

t ]
. ” E s tate of

L adner , 909 S o. 2d at1055 ( ci t i ng T h om as v. E u ba n ks’ E sta te , 3 58 So. 2d 709, 713 ( M i s s . 1978) )
. O ne of the es s ent i al s of

a val i d i nt ervi vos gif

t i s thatthe pr operty m us tbe del i ver ed i n s uch mannerthatthe donorr et ai ns no contr ol or d o m in io n o v e r i t. I

d. ¶52. W e conc l ude thatthe pr om i s s ory not e i n thi s cas e cons t i tut es a compl et ed i nt ervi vos g if t by L au g h ter t o F o ster. A g if t of n o tes p ay ab le to th e d o n o r is p erfec ted b y d eli v ery th e re o f t o th e d o n e e . P ace v. P ace , 65 So. 273, 274 ( M i s s . 1914) ( ci t i ng A sh b ro o kv. R yo n ’s A dm ’r , 2 B u s h 2 2 8 (K y . C t. A p p . 1 8 6 7 ))
. See al s o Ma ierv. H

ill , 72 So. 2d 209 ( M i s s . 1954) ( hol di ng thattr ans f

erof phys i cal pos s es si on of ni ne, $1, 000 p r om i s s ory not es t o donee
cr eat ed val i d i nt ervi vos g if t)
. 9 ¶53. L aught er ’ s t r ans f erof the not e t o F os t erm etal l the r equi r ement s of a val i d i nt ervi vos g ift. L a u g h ter h a d th e re q u isite d o n a tiv e in ten t to g iv e th e p ro m iss o ry n o te to F o ste r, at a t i m e w hen hi s c om pet ence i s unc ont es t ed. L aught ervol unt ar i l y de l i ver ed the not e t o Fost erT here i s onl y one ava i l abl e ar gum entthatthe gi f ti n thi s cas e w as condi t i onal or 10 thatLaught erdi d notgi ve up domi ni on overthe payment s . T he ar gum entr el i es on the f act thatthe not e expr es s l y pr ovi ded thatFost erw oul d be pai d underthe not e onl y i n the eve nt o f L a u g h te r’ s d e a th o r h is in a b ility to a c c e p t p a y m e n t. A u th o rities fro m o th e r ju risd ictio n s a re s p lita s to w h e th e r th is d e fe a ts F o ste r’s c laim to th e n o te . See P a rk e r v . Mo tt , 1 0 7 S
. E
. 50 0 , 50 2 (N
. C
. 19 2 1 ) (ex p lai n ing d isag ree m en t)
. Som e j ur i s di ct i ons hol d thatgi f t s of negot i abl e i ns trum ent s , paymentupon w hi ch t o the do nee i s con dit i on al u po n death of don or, are noteff ect i ve as i nt ervi vos gi f

t s . Forexampl e, i n P a r k e r v . Mo tt , i tw as hel d thata del i very w hi ch conf er s on the donee pow ert o contr ol th e fu n d o n ly a fte r th e d e a th o f th e d o n o r, w h e n b y th e in stru m e n t it se lf it i s p re se n tly p a y a b le , is te s ta m e n ta ry in c h a ra c te r, a n d n o t g o o d a s a g if t. P arker , 107 S. E
. at502 ( ci t i ng Cook v. Lum , 2 6 A
. 8 0 3 (N
. J. 18 9 3 )). O ther juri sd ict ion s reac h th e o p p o sit e c o n clus ion
. In D insl age v. Str at

m an , 180 N
. W
. 81 ( N eb. 1920) , i tw as he l d that“ [ t ] he m er e f actthatactual e n jo y m e n t o f th e g ift b y th e d o n e e is, b y th e d e c lar a tio n o f th e g ift, p o stp o n e d u n til th e d e a th of the donor , does notr ender t he gif tei thercondi t i onal , ort es t ament ary, ori n any w ay i nval i d. ” I

d . a t 8 3 ; acco rd Tuckerv. Tucker , 1 1 6 N .W . 1 1 9 (I o w a 1 9 0 8 ). W hetheran att empt ed i nt ervi vos g ift o f a p ro m iss o ry n o te is d e fe a ted if th e n o te m akes paymentt o the donee condi t i onal upon the donor ’ s death i s appar ent l y a ques t i on of f i r s ti m pr es s i on i n M i s s i s s i ppi
. B eca us e w e f i nd t hatL aught erm etal l t he r equi r ement s f or a val i d i nt ervi vos g if

t, h o w e v e r, w e n e e d n o t a d d re s s th e q u e s tio n h e re .



### 18 w hen he ga ve heractual phys i cal pos s es s i on of i t , c om pl et i ng the uncondi t i onal gi f t . Fi nal l y, Fost eracc ept ed the not e and kepti ta the rhome, w hi ch made the gi f ti rr evocabl e. T o m ake a compl et ed gi f

tof the not e, ther e w as nothi ng m or e thatL aught erorFost ercoul d have done. 10 ¶ 5 4
. Atth e mo me n to f L a u g h t e r ’ s d e l i v e ry o f

th e n o t e t o F o s t e r , th e g i f twa s c o mp l e t e . At thatm om ent , the r i ghtt o r ece i ve paymenton the not e al s o ves t ed i n F os t er . Si nce Laught er d id n o t ind o rse an d ne g o ti ate th e n o te t o F o ster, w h ich w o u ld h av e e x ti n g u ishe d L au g h ter’s
r i ghtt o paym entundert he not e, A dams had a choi ce w hethert o r emi tpayment s t o L aught er
ort o F os t er . A tL aught er ’ s death, how ever , t he r i ghtt o paym entw as vest ed i n F os t eral one, pu rs uan tto t he t erm s of t he no t e it sel f and the sal es contr actbetw een L aug hterand A dam s.

### 19

¶55. T he pr om i ssor y not e gi ven t o Fost ercons t i tut ed an i ntervi vos gi f t . T her ef

or e, the
c h a n c e llo r e rr e d in d e te rm in in g th a t th e n o te w a s a n a s s e t o f L a u g h te r’ s e s ta te . CO NC L US I ON ¶56. T he evi dence bef or e the chanc el l or w as s uf f i ci ent t o r ai s e genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al factas to L aught er ’ s t es t ament ary capa ci ty atthe t i m e of the M ay w i l l and as t o w hether L a u g h ter a n d W ill iam s h a d a c o n fid e n tial re latio n sh ip su c h th a t L a u g h te r w a s u n d u ly i nfl uen ced by W i l l i ams w hen exe cut i ng the M ay w i l l
. Fur ther , L aught er ’ s gi f tof the pr om i s s ory not e t o Fost erh ad al l the e l ement s nece s s ary t o cons t i tut e a c om pl et ed and
su c c e ss fu l i nt ervi vos gi f t , and thus , the not e i s notan as s etof L aug hte r ’ s es t at e. T he
c h a n c e llo r’ s d e c is io n to th e c o n tr a ry w a s in e rr o r. ¶ 5 7
. T h e ch a n c e ry co u rt’s o rd e r g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f W illia m s is
rev erse d , the c h an ce ry c o u rt ’s fi n d ing that th e p ro m issory n o te i s an asse t of L au g h ter’s
e sta te is r e v e rse d , an d th is c a se is re m a n d e d fo r fu rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is
o p in io n . ¶ 5 8
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. C A R LSO N A N D G R A V ES, P. JJ . , D I C K I N SO N , R A N D O LP H , K I TC H EN S, CH AN DL E R A ND P I E RC E , J J . , CO NC UR . L AMAR , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .