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 9 - CT - 0 1 9 6 8 - S CT I N THE M

ATT ER OF T

HE EST ATE OF BOBBYE N. BR I L L , DE CE

AS ED AN D A NNI E HOB S ON NICH OLS, DE CEA SED: FRA NK NICH OLS v. S HI RLE E N. PHI

LL I PSAND KATHRYN KENNI NGTON ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 16/ 2009 TR I A L J U D G E: H O N
. PA TR I CI A D
. W I SE CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: HI NDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT RH ETT R. RU SS ELL CL AR E NC E M CD ONAL D L E L AND W
. O. DI LL ARD A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E S : R O B E R T D A V ID M A R C H E T T I CA M I L L E HE NI CK E VANS GR E GG A. CA RA W AY J OSHUA P
. HENRY 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 : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 15/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. Fr ank N i chol s , indi vidual l y and as ex ecutoro f A nn i e H ob son N i chol s ’ s es t at e, p e tit io n e d th e C h a n c e ry C o u rt fo r th e F irst Ju d icia l D istric t o f H in d s C o u n ty to re m o v e h is sis ter , S h irle e P h ill ip s, a n d K a th ry n K e n n in g to n a s c o a d m in istra trix e s o f th e e sta te o f h is othersi st er, B ob by e B ri l l
. T he ch ancell or denied F rank’s peti t i on . T he ch ance ll o r al so

### 2

f ound thatB obbye’ s w i l l c r eat ed a condi t i on pr ece dent , w hi ch Shi r l ee mustper f or m i n or der t o r ece i ve the r es i duary es t at e. Fr ank appe al ed the chanc el l or ’ s j udgm ent , and w e as s i gned this case to the C o u rto f A p p ea ls. In d u e c o u rse , th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls, fi n d ing n o erro r,
a ff ir m e d th e ju d g m e n t o f t h e c h a n c e ry c o u rt . N i chol s v. P hil li ps , ___ So. 3d ___, 2010 W L 6200776 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. M ar . 22, 2011)
. T hi s C our tgr ant ed Fr ank’ s Pet i t i on f orW r i tof C e rt io ra ri
. N

i chol s v. P hil li ps , 69 So. 3d 767 ( T abl e) ( M i s s . 2011)
. W e now cons i der
w h ethe r th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls erred in a ffi rm ing the jud g m en t entere d b y the C h an ce ry C o u rt f orthe Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds C ounty. F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶ 2
. B o b b y e B rill die d te sta te o n A p ril 1 , 2 0 0 4 . S h e w a s s u rv iv e d b y h e r m o th e r, A n n ie N icho ls, an d h er b roth er an d si ster, F ran k N icho ls an d S h ir lee P h il li p s, resp ec ti v ely. B ri ll ’s ho l og raphi c w i l l st at es: I, B o b b y e B ri ll, le a v e m y h o m e a n d c o n te n ts to m y sis te r, S h ir le e P h illip s . M y Th u n d e rb i r d c a rI l e a v e t o my b r o th e r , F r a n k Ni c h o l s . Th e r e ma i n d e ro f my es t at e I l eave t o my si s t er , Shi r l ee Ph i l l i ps , w i th the under s t andi ng s he w i l l t ake c a re o f m y m o th e r, A n n ie N ich o ls. P lea se b e su re th is is c a rrie d o u t. T he w i l l w as exec ut ed on M ar ch 10, 2004, and w as w i tnes s ed by Char l es D eK ay and M ac K en n ing ton , Jr. ¶3. T he chanc ery cour tappoi nt ed Phi l l i ps and K athryn K enni ngt on as coadmi ni s tr atr i xes
o f B rill’s w ill . O n Ju n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , F ra n k filed a c a v e a t a g a in s t t h e p ro b a te o f B rill’s w ill , cont endi ng thatB r i l l di d nothave t es t ament ary capa ci ty atthe t i m e s he exe cut ed herw i l l and th a t itw a s th e p ro d u c t o f P h ill ip s’s u n d u e in flu e n c e . O n Ja n u a ry 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , A n n ie N ich o ls

### 3

d ied tes tate . F ra n k w a s a p p o in ted e x e c u to r o f A n n ie’ s e sta te. H e th e n filed a m o tio n to di s char ge Phi l l i ps and K enni ngt on as c oadmi ni s tr atr i xes , cl ai m i ng thatPhi l l i ps had br eac hed herf i duci ary duty by us i ng herpos i t i on t o benef i ther s el f per s onal l y. ¶4. T he chancel l or enter ed an or der on February 9, 2006, f i ndi ng that Phi l l i ps had not br eac hed herf

i duci ary duty as coadmi ni s t atr i x of B r i l l ’ s w i l l
. O n M ay 8, 2 00 7, the
c h a n c e llo r e n ter e d a fin a l ju d g m e n t a n d o rd e r, fin d in g th a t B rill h a d tes tam e n tar y c a p a c ity on the dat e herw i l l w as exec ut ed and thatthe hol ogr aphi c w i l l w as val i d. ¶5. O n M ay 23, 2007, Fr ank f i l ed a pe t i t i on f

orcons truct i on of

B r i l l ’ s w i l l , r eques t i ng that the cha ncel l orcons true the f i nal t w o s ent ence s of

B r i l l ’ s w i l l as ei ther : ( 1) cr eat i ng a t es t ament ary t rus tbenef i t t i ng A nni e, w i th the r es i duary pa s s i ng a s i nt es t at e pr operty; or( 2) voi d due t o the l ack of

t erm i nat i on dat e f

orthe pr opos ed trus t . T w o days l at er , on M ay 25, 2007, Phi l l i ps a nd K enni ngt on f i l ed a s i m i l arpe t i t i on, r eques t i ng thatthe cha ncel l orcons true the l as ttw o s ent ence s a s c r eat i ng a r es i duary be ques tt o Phi l l i ps . O n A ugus t23, 2007, Fr ank f i l ed anotherm ot i on t o r emove Phi l l i ps and K enni ngt on as coadmi nis tr atr i xes , cont endi ng thatthey had us ed thei rf i duci ary pos i t i ons t o s eek pe r s onal gai n f orPhi l l i ps t o the detr i m ent
o f o th e r b e n e fic iar ies o f B rill’s w ill
. ¶6. O n N ovember19, 2007, the chanc el l ore nt er ed an or derf i ndi ng thatthe thi r d s ent ence of B ri l l ’s w i l l “leaves t he rem ai nd er of the D ecede nt’ s est at e t o h er s i st er, S hir l ee N
. P hil l i ps, on t he condi t i on t hatshe t ake ca r e of herm other , A nni e N i chol s . ” The chanc el l oral s o f ound th a t “th e fin a l se n ten c e o f th e W ill
. . . re fe rs to e a c h a n d e v e ry p rio r p ro v isio n o f th e W ill ” and that“the thi r d s ent ence of the W i l l m akes very cl eart hati f Shi r l ee Phi l l i ps t ook car e of

### 4

he rmothe r , Anni e Ni c ho l s , the n Shi r l e e Ph i l l i ps woul d be e nt i t l e d t o the r e mai nd e rof t he D ec ed en t’ s estate.” In th is sam e o rde r, the c h an ce ll o r se t an ev iden ti ary h ea ri n g for F eb rua ry 5, 2008, t o det erm i ne i f

Phi l l i ps had t aken car e of A nni e, and thus had f

ul f i l l ed the condi t i on in B rill’s w ill
. ¶7. A f

t erthe hea r i ng, the cha ncel l orent er ed an or deron June 3, 2008, es s ent i al l y f i ndi ng that P h il li p s h ad fulf

il led the co n d it ion i n B ri ll ’s w il l and that P h il li p s sh o u ld rec eive B ri ll ’s
re sid u a l es tate . T h e o rd e r sta tes , in p a rt: T he C our tf

i nds thatt he Test atr i x i nt ended S hir l ee Phi l l i ps t o r ece i ve her residu ary estate, bu t th at sh e also inten d ed fo r P h il li p s to ca re fo r the irm o ther. Phi l l i ps i s an i nt ended benef i ci ary, a nd the r es i duary beques ts houl d be uphel d. T h e e v id e n c e s h o w s th a t P h ill ip s d id re n d e r s u c h re a so n a b le a n d a p p ro p ria te car e t o herm otherand thus f ul f i l l ed the condi t i on i n the W i l l
. C ont es t ant Fr ank N i chol s f

ai l ed t o pr es ents uf

f i ci entev i dence t o es t abl i s h thatShi r l ee P h ill ip s d id n o t “ ta ke c a re o f ” herm other , A nn N i chol s . T her ef or e, Phi l l i ps is e n tit led to re c e iv e th e e n tire r e sid u a ry e sta te o f B o b b y e N . B rill. (E m p h a s is o rig in a l.) F ra n k th e n filed a p e tit io n fo r in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l w ith th is C o u rt, cont es t i ng the cha ncel l or ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the w i l l
. W e deni ed the pet i t i on. ¶8
. O n A p ri l 14 , 2 0 0 9 , a n o th e r h e a rin g w a s h e ld to d e ter m ine th e m erit s o f F ran k ’s pet i t i on t o r emove Phi l l i ps and K enni ngt on as coadmi ni s tr atr i xi es . T he cha ncel l ordeni ed the pet i t i on, f

i ndi ng thatno part i al i ty r es ul t ed f r om Phi l l i ps ’ s dual r ol e as fi du ci ary and benef i ci ary. O n June 8, 2009, upon pet i t i on of Phi l l i ps and K enni ngt on, the cha ncel l or
w ai ved al l annual acc ount i ngs and the f i nal acc ount i ng. O n N ovember16, 2009, t he chanc el l orent er ed a j udgm entcl os i ng B r i l l ’ s es t at e.

### 5

¶9. Fr ank appea l ed the chanc el l or ’ s j udgm ent , and the cas e w as as s i gned t o the C our tof A p p e a ls
. N

i chol s v. P hil li ps , 2 0 1 0 W L 6 2 0 0 7 7 6 (M is s . C t. A p p . M a rc h 2 2 , 2 0 1 1 ). PROCEEDI NG S I N THE C OU RT OF APPE ALS ¶10. O n appea l , Fr ank cont ended that the chanc ery court had err ed i n not enf or ci ng bond, i nvent ory, voucher , and ac count i ng r equi r ement s ; i n notr emovi ng Phi l l i ps and K enni ngt on
a s c o a d m in is tr a tr ix e s ; a n d in in te rp re tin g th e w ill. N ich o ls , 20 1 0 W L 6 2 0 0 7 7 6 at *1 , ¶1
. In
re s p o n s e , P h illip s a n d K e n n in g to n c la im e d th a t th e a p p e a l w a s u n tim e ly
. N ich o ls , 2 0 1 0 WL 6200776 at*2, ¶11. T he C our tof A ppeal s hel d t hatt he appea l w as t i m el y and af f i r m ed the chanc ery court ’ s j udgm ent , f i ndi ng thatthe cha ncel l ordi d noter r by: notenf or ci ng bond, i nvent ory, oracc ount i ng r equi r ement s ; n ot r em ovi ng Phi l l i ps and K enni ngt on as
c o a d m in is tr a tr ix e s ; a n d fi n d in g th a t B ri ll’ s w ill h a d c re a te d a c o n d itio n a l b e q u e s t. N ich o ls , 2 0 1 0 W L 6 2 0 0 7 7 6 at ** 2 -5, ¶¶ 1 1 -23
. F ran k fi led a m o ti o n for reh ea ri n g , w h ich the C o u rt of A ppeal s deni ed. ¶11. Fr ank then f

i l ed a Pet i t i on f

orW r i tof

C ert i or ar i w i th thi s C our t , w hi ch w e gr ant ed. N i chol s v. P hil li ps , 6 9 S o . 3 d 7 6 7 (T ab le) (M iss. 2 0 1 1 ).

DI S CU S S I ON ¶12. I n hi s pet i t i on, Fr ank cont ends that the C our t of A ppeal s f ai l ed t o conduct a de novo
r evi ew of

w hetherthe cha ncel l or’ s construct i on of B r i l l ’ s w i l l – namel y, w hethert he
c h a n c e llo r e rre d in fin d in g th a t B rill’s w ill c re a ted a c o n d iti o n p re c e d e n t. W e a g re e w ith F ra n k ’s c o n ten tio n a n d g ra n ted h is p e tit io n o n th e se g ro u n d s. F ra n k a lso c la im s in h is pet i t i on thatthe C our tof A ppeal s er r ed i n af

f i r m i ng the cha ncel l or ’ s j udgm entthatPhi l l i ps

### Wh ile we ag ree withth e an al y si s, in clu d in gth e c h an ce ll o r’s fin din g th at Ph illips “d id 1 

### render suc h re as onabl e a

nd appropri ate c are to h er moth er,” Annie N icho ls, our disag reement with both the chance ll or and theCour t of Appea ls i s on the is sueof whe ther the langua ge of th e will createda con ditio n p recedent. 6 had f ul f i l l ed the condi t i on pr ece dent ; i n denyi ng F rank’ s m ot i ons t o r emove Phi l l i ps and K enni ngt on as coad m i nis tratri xes; and i n r ef us i ng t o r equi r e bond, i nvent ory, and ac count i ng. W e fi nd no err or i n the C ou rtof A pp eal s’ analysi s of these i ssues. A ccordi ng l y, w e add res s 1
o n ly th e iss u e o f w h e th e r B rill’s w ill c re a ted a c o n d iti o n p re c e d e n t. W HET HER T HE L ANGUAGE OF BR I LL ’ S W I LL CRE AT ED A CO NDI TI ON PRECEDENT. A . Standard of

R eview ¶ 1 3
. T ria l co u rts a re e n tit led to d e fe re n tial r e v iew in m a tters in v o lv in g q u e stio n s o f fa c t. E sta te o f G r if fi th v. G riffith , 30 So. 3d 1190, 1193 ( M i s s . 2010) ( ci t i ng Y arbr ough v. Cam phor , 645 So. 2d 867, 869 ( M i s s . 1994))
. A s s uch, thi s C our tappl i es a mani f es t - err or
s ta n d a rd to a c h a n c e ll o r ’s fi n d in g o f f a c ts . E sta te o

f G riffith , 30 So. 3d at1193 ( ci t i ng G o o de v . V

il lag e o f W o o d g ree n Ho m eo w n ers A ss’n , 662 So
. 2d 10 64 , 107 0-71 (M is s. 1995) )
. W hen r evi ew i ng a cha ncel l or ’ s l egal f i ndi ngs , how ever , the C our templ oys a de
n o v o s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . E sta te o f G riffith , 30 So. 3d at1193 ( ci t i ng In re L a st W ill & T es tam ent of Car ney , 758 So. 2d 1017, 1020 ( M i s s . 2000) )
. Q ues t i ons of w i l l cons truct i on – i
. e. , the exi s t ence of

a condi t i onal pr ece dent– ar e ques t i ons of l aw a nd a r e r evi ew ed under
a d e n o v o s ta n d a rd
. See I n re Car ney , 758 S o. 2d at1020 ( “[ T ] he pr opers t andar d f or
re v iew in g a c h a n c e llo r’s a p p lica tio n o f th e ru les o f c o n stru c tio n in w ill s a n d e sta tes c a se s is

### 7

d e n o v o re v iew a p p lica b le to a ll q u e stio n s o f la w d e c id e d in c h a n c e ry c o u rt.”); E s tate of Hom bu rg , 6 9 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 4 , 1 1 5 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). B . T he Court of A ppeal s ’O pini on ¶14. T he C our t of A ppeal s ’ opi ni on began by s t at i ng corr ect l y that the s t andar d of r evi ew is d e n o v o . N

i chol s v. P hil li ps , 2010 W L 6200776 at*4, ¶20. B uta r eadi ng of the C our tof A ppeal s ’ opi ni on r evea l s thati tdi d not , how ever , con ducta de novo r evi ew . R ather , t he C o u rt o f A p p e a ls d isc u ss e d th e c h a n c e llo r’s fin d in g s th a t th e w ill w a s u n a m b ig u o u s, th a t it
cr eat ed a “ condi t i onal beques t , ” and t hatPhi l l i ps had f ul f i l l ed the condi t i on and w as ent i t l ed to the rem a in d e r o f B rill’s es tat e . N ich o ls , 2010 W L 6200776 at*4, ¶¶21- 22. T hen, t he C ou rtof A ppeal s ci t ed P ace v. P ace , 24 So. 3d 325, 331 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2009) , f ort he propo si t i on that an app el l at e cou rtw i l l no tdis turb a ch ancell or’ s f actualdet er m i nat i on that
a c o n d itio n h a s b e e n s a tis fi e d a b s e n t a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . N ich o ls , 2010 W L 6200776 at *4 , ¶22
. T he o pini on al so ci t es I n r e B r adley’s E s tate v. G r aham , 187 W as h. 221, 59 P. 2d 1129 ( 1936) , and McN

e e se v. Co n w ill , 1 7 7 M is s . 4 2 7 , 1 7 0 S o . 6 7 8 , 6 7 8 -7 9 (1 9 3 6 ). N ich o ls , 2010 W L 6200776 at*4, ¶22. I n B ra dley ’s E sta te , the Supr eme C our tof W as hi ngt on f

ound thatthe t es t at ori nt ended thatthe r es i due of he res t at e go t o herf

r i end, and thatthe l anguage , “s he mustt ake c ar e of

m y dearcat s [ , ] ” “i m pos ed no obl i gat i on exce pta s i tmay appea l t o the d is c re tio n a n d g o o d w ill” o f th e te s ta to r’ s fr ie n d
. I d . a t 2 2 5
. McN

eese , di s cus s ed i nfr a , h e ld th a t t h e te s ta to r’ s w ill c re a te d a te s ta m e n ta ry tru s t. McN eese , 170 So. at679. A f t erci t i ng thes e tw o cas es , t he C our tof A ppeal s concl uded t hatthe cha ncel l ordi d noterri n f i ndi ng t hat

### 8

th e la n g u a g e in B ri ll’ s w ill c re a te d a c o n d itio n a l b e q u e s t. N ich o ls , 2010 W L 6200776 at*5, ¶ 2 3
. T h u s , th e Co u r to f Ap p e a l s d i d n o tc o n d u c tth e r e q u i s i t e d e n o v o r e v i e w. C . W il l Const r ucti on ¶15. In h is p eti ti o n for ce rti o ra ri, F ra n k co n tend s that B ri ll ’s w il l cre ated a testam en tary trus tf orthe bene f

i tof A nni e, and t hatthe cha ncery courterr ed i n f i ndi ng thatthe w i l l cr eat ed
a c o n d iti o n a l be q u e st. In su p p o rt o f th is c o n ten tio n , F ra n k cite s s e v e ra l ca se s in w h ich th is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t p re c a to ry la n g u a g e in a w ill m a y c re a te a te s ta m e n ta ry tru s t. See Y eates
v. B ox , 1 9 8 M iss
. 6 0 2 , 2 2 S o . 2 d 4 1 1 (1 9 4 5 ); W h itak er v. C om m ercial N at’l . B an k & T

rust Co. , 1 7 9 M iss . 1 6 7 , 1 7 4 S o . 8 9 0 (1 9 3 7 ); McN eese , 170 So. 678. ¶16. W e f

i nd thatthes e cas es a r e di s t i ngui s habl e f r om t oday’ s cas e. T he w i l l i n Y eates sta ted in p a rt: I des i r e thatm y w i f

e M att i e H
. B ox be ca r ed f ort o t he am ou ntof

T hr ee T hous and D ol l ar s peryearthats he have the use of hom e dur i ng herl i f et i m e. S he is al so t o h ave $ 50 00
. 00 i nsurance O
. R
. C
. P oli cy # 1, S eri es E
. . . I al so w antand des i r e thatm y ol d U ncl e, L
. W
. W of f or d be car ed f

orunt i l death & bur i ed. Y eates , 22 So. 2d at413. T hi s C our ti n Y eates h e ld th a t th e sp e c ific p ro v is io n s in th e w ill d ire c tin g th e fid u c iar ies to p a y the tes tato r’s w ife an an n u ity an d c a re fo r th e tes tato r’s u n c le
u n til h is d e a th c re a te d a te s ta m e n ta ry tru s t. I d . at414. B eca us e the w i l l i n Y eates pr ovi ded
s p e c if ic d e ta ils a s to h o w th e d e c e d e n t’ s w if e a n d u n c le w e re to b e ta k e n c a re o f, Y eates is d istin g u ish a b le f

ro m to d a y ’s c a se . N o su c h d e tails a re p re se n t in B rill’s w ill
.

### 9

¶17. Si m i l ar t o Y

eates , t he w i l l i n W

hitaker pr ovi ded enough det ai l s t o s uppor t a f i ndi ng th a t th e w ill c re a te d a te s ta m e n ta ry tru s t. W hitaker , 174 So. at892. T he w i l l i n W hi taker
re a d , in p a rt: T hatmy si s t er s I r ene, Lena and J uni e C
. W hi t akerbe a l l ow ed ade quat e f unds f or[ thei r ] s uppor ta nd mai nt enanc es , and ea ch one t o have e qual l y as l ong as th e y are sin g le, sh o u ld an y o f th e m g e t m a rrie d , th e n the ir sh a re w ill b e o n ly h alf. S h o u ld all of th em m arry the n a ll o f th eir he ir s m y B roth ers a n d S ist ers s hal l s har e equa l l y. Shoul d any of m y si s t er s m i s t ood upon m arry [ s i c] and be m ade w i dow s f

orany ca us e then they s hal l be rest ored to thei rf ul l s har e as l ong as w i dow es [ s i c]
. I f any of them shoul d di e l eavi ng husband a nd chi l d or chi l dr en then thei rshar e ori nt er es tshal l be hel d i n trus tf orthe bene f

i tof the chi l dr en. I d . at891. A gai n, B r i l l ’ s w i l l does notcont ai n t he sa m e di r ect i ves as the w i l l i n W hitaker
. ¶18. I n McN

eese , the d e c e d e n t’s w ill re a d , in p a rt: Ite m II. I g iv e d e v ise a n d b e q u e a th to m y w ife B e tti e F in n e y a ll o f m y e sta te and pr operty r eal and per s onal and mi xed. I t em II I
. I ti s m y w i l l and des i r e thatatthe dea th of m y w i f e B ett i e Fi nney the r emai ni ng pr operty, r eal , per s onal orm i xed s hal l go t o m y nephew , Fr ank Fi nney and hi s w i f

e, I am doi ng thi s f

orthe ki ndnes s and af

f ect i on thatthey have s how n m e i n m y l as tyearand f orthe ki ndnes s they have s how n m y w i f e, B e tti e F in n e y , w h o ’s [s ic] h e a lth h a s b e e n b a d fo r se v e ra l y e a rs, a n d th a t I b e liev e F ra n k F in n e y a n d h is w ife M a u d ie F in n e y w ill tak e c a re o f m y w ife in her decli ning yea rs . McN eese , 170 So. at678. I n f i ndi ng thatthe w i l l cr eat ed a t es t ament ary trus tbenef i t t i ng t he dece dent ’ s w i f

e, the C our t , i n McN

eese , hel d thatthe t es t ament ary i ns trum entm us tbe r ead
a s a w h o le
. I

d . at679. T he C our tal s o f ound thatthe dec edent ’ s w i f e’ s m ent al i ncompet ence
w a s a n im p o rt a n t f

a c t in d e te rm in in g th a t th e in s tru m e n t c re a te d a te s ta m e n ta ry tru s t. I d.

### 10

U ltim a te ly , McN

ees e fo u n d th a t, a fte r th e w id o w ’s d e a th , the n e p h e w ’s r e sid u a ry e sta te
s h o u ld b e c h a rg e d w ith th e c o s t o f h e r c a re . I d. ¶1 9
. N o t on ly a re the fac ts of McN eese di s t i ngui s habl e f

r om t oday’ s cas e, butthe l anguage of the tw o w i l l s i s as w el l
. T he McN eese w il l con tai n s the clau se “It i s m y w il l an d d esire thatatthe dea th of

m y w i f e B ett i e Finney t he re m ai ni ng pr operty, r eal , per s onal orm i xed shal l go t o m y nephew , Fr ank Fi nney and hi s w i f e. ” I d . at678. B r i l l ’ s w i l l cont ai ned no pr ovi s i on di r ect i ng how the r es i duary es t at e s houl d be di s tr i but ed upon A nni e’ s death. ¶ 2 0
. McN

ees e gav e som e g u idan ce for d eterm ining w h en a w il l creates a test am en tary trust
a n d w h e n la n g u a g e in a w ill m e re ly e x p re s s e s a w is h o r d e s ir e . McN ees e i ns truct s thatthe l anguage i n the w i l l , al ong w i th the surr oundi ng ci r cumst ance s , s houl d be cons i der ed w hen d e te r m in in g if

a te s ta m e n ta ry tru s t is c re a te d
. I d . a t 6 7 9 . B u t McN

ees e a l s o warns t ha t
c o u rts s h o u ld b e c a u tio u s w h e n fin d in g th a t a te sta m e n tar y tru st e x ists: I ti s true thatw hen expr es s w or ds a r e abs ent , c our t s muste xer ci s e due c aut i on that w ords as ser t ed t o be t he equ i valentthereof shal l not be press ed t o o far; neverthel es s , t he hol di ngs have be en gener al l y t o the ef f ectthats uch a tes tam e n tar y tru st w ill a rise w h e n th e in ten tio n is re a so n a b ly m a n ife st o r w e ll i nf er abl e f r om the ent i r e l anguage , vi ew ed i n l i ghto f al l the s urr oundi ng ci rcum st ances. I d . ¶21. I n R

y a ls v . McP h a il

, 154 M i s s . 295, 122 S o. 4 93 (192 9), thi s C our thel d that the fo llo w in g lan g u a g e d id n o t cr e a te a tes tam e n tar y tru st: I gi ve, devi s e and be queath unt o m y hus band, Si m on R
. R obbi ns , al l and s i ngul arm y r eal and per s onal pr operty w her e eve rs i tuat ed and of w hatever ki nd orchatt el thatI m ay di e pos s es s ed of , ora ny s uch pr operty i n expec t ancy o r in w h ich I m a y h a v e a n y e q u itab le in ter e st, in fe e s im p le to h im , m y sa id

### 11

h u s b a n d , t o d o w ith as seem eth to hi m best , and i f i n the Pr ovi dence of

G od, I s h o u ld d ie b e fo re m y s a id h u s b a n d , I des i r e thathe s hould r em em berand p r o v i d e a th is d e a th f o rmy c h i ldr e n , Ma n s e n La f a y e t t e Ri a l

s , Ma r y E. McI nnis , and Lucy E. H

am . R y a ls , 1 2 2 S o . at 4 9 3 (em p h asis a d d ed ). In fi n d ing tha t th e w il l did n o t crea te a testam en tary trus t , the C our tr eas oned thatthe l anguage w as cl earand unambi guous , thatthe w i l l devi s ed al l of the t es t at or ’ s pr operty t o herhus band i n f ee s i m pl e, and thats he “m er el y expr es s ed the de s i r e tha t[ he rhu s ba nd ] s ho ul d, a thi s de a th, r e membe ra nd make s ome p r ov i s i on f orher chi l dr en. ” I

d . at493. T hi s C our t , i n R y a ls , r eas oned thata ny pr ovi s i ons fort he ch i l dr en
w er e “c l ear l y l ef

tt o the choi ce a nd di s cr et i on of herhus band. ” I

d. ¶22. M or e r ece nt l y, i n Estate of D e de auxv. D e de aux , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d 4 1 9 (19 9 1 ), this C o u rt i nt erpr et ed a w i l l thatf i r s tdevi s ed al l of

the dec edent’ s “ea r thl y pos s es s i ons ” t o hi s w i f e, then i n a s ubs equentpar agr aph di r ect ed thatathi s w i f e’ s death, cert ai n i t ems w er e t o be d ev ised to o ther m e m b e rs o f th e fa m il y . T h e w il l r ea d , in p art: “It i s m y d esire tha t i f I sh o u ld [prec ed e] m y w if e K ay in d ea th tha t al l of m y e arthly p o sses sion s b e re ce ived b y h er. S h o u ld sh e [p re c e d e ] m e in d e a th ; o r sh o u ld w e d ie to g e th e r; o r a t h e r d e a th I w o u ld lik e to l eave t he f

ol l ow i ng poss es s i ons as l i s t ed. ” I d . at420. T hi s C our tf

ound thatthe phr as e “a t herdeath I w oul d l i ke t o l eave the f ol l ow i ng pos s es s i ons as l i s t ed” w as , atm os t , pr eca t or y. I d . at 42 1
. In find ing that the testator’s w if e w as th e so le de v isee u n d er the w il l, the C o u rt quot ed H

ar vey v. Johnson , 1 1 1 M iss . 5 6 6 , 7 1 S o . 8 2 4 (1 9 1 6 ), fo r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t: W her e an i nt er es torest at e i s gi ven i n one cl aus e of a w i l l i n cl earand dec i s i ve t erm s , i tcannotbe t aken a w ay orcutdow n by r ai s i ng a doubtupon the me a n i n g a n d a p p l i c a t i o n o f a s u b s e q u e n tc l a u s e , n o rb y i n f e r e n c e th e r e f

r o m,

### See 97 C.J.S
. Wills § 1 38 1 (2 00 1). 2 

### Sinc e c onditions in a

willarenot favor ed, the courts willavoid a c onstruc ti on wh ich w ou ld imp o se ac o n ditio n, unless th e intent to d o so clearly ap pears. Th e wo rds u sed ina will are no t to b e con struedas impo rting a con ditio n if the y ar e f airly ca pabl e of dif fe rent cons tr uction, es pec ia lly when the l atte r cour sewould c ar

ry out theint ention of

thete st at or. 12 norby any s ubs equentw or ds thatar e notas cl earand dec i s i ve as the w or ds gi vi ng the i nt er es torthe es t at e. Estate of D e de aux , 584 So. 2d at422. ¶23. W i th thes e cas es i n m i nd, w e turn t o the f act s of t oday’ s cas e. Fr ank as s ert s thatt he thi r d s ent ence i n B obbye’ s w i l l – “The r emai nderof m y es t at e I l eave t o m y s i s t er , Shi r l ee Phi l l i ps , w i th t he under s t andi ng thats he w i l l t ake c ar e of m y m other , A nni e N i chol s ” – devi s es B obbye’ s re s i duary est at e t o A nni e ei ther“out r i ghtor thr ough trus t . ” The chanc el l or and the C our tof

A ppeal s f

ound thatthi s s ent ence c r eat ed a “ condi t i onal beques t . ” N ich o ls , 2010 W L 6200776 at*5, ¶2 3. A ft er r evi ew i ng the ent i r e w i l l , w e f i nd thatthe s ent ence
cr eat es nei thera t es t ament ary trus tnora “c ondi t i onal beques t . ” R ather , t he s ent ence devi s ed B r i l l ’ s r es i duary es t at e t o Shi r l ee i n f ee s i m pl e. W e f

i nd thatthe l anguage “ w i t h the
u n d erstan d ing that sh e w il l t ak e c are o f m y m o the r” w as a p rec atory ex p ression o f B ri ll ’s
w i s h ordes i r e and w as noti m per at i ve. ¶24. T he w i l l i n R

y a ls cl ear l y s t at ed thatthe t es t at or ’ s pr operty w as t o pas s t o her hus band i n f ee s i m pl e. A l t ho ug h B r i l l ’ s w i l l does noti ncl ude the s ame cl earl anguage as the R y a ls
w i l l , nothi ng i n t he w i l l demonstr at es t hatB r i l l i nt ended t o cr eat e a trus tt o benef i therm ot her
ort o condi t i on herbeques tt o Phi l l i ps . U nl i ke the t es t at or s i n Y eates a nd W

h i taker , B rill 2

### 13

ga ve n o di r e c t i on a s t o ho w Ph i l l i ps s ho ul d c a r e f orh e rmothe r . W i tho utl a ng ua ge t hat cl earl y evi dence s B r i l l ’ s i nt ent , w e ca nnotf i nd thatthe w i l l cr eat ed a t es t ament ary trus tor
a c o n d it ion
. R ea d ing B ri ll ’s w il l in i ts en ti rety, w e fi n d th at Ph il li p s i s th e d ev isee o f B ri ll ’s
r es i duary es t at e i n f

ee s i m pl e. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 5
. Br i l l ’ s wi l l c o n v e y e d h e r r e s i d u a ry e s t a t e t o P h i l l i p s i n f e e s i mp l e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we fin d th a t th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d ch a n c e ry co u rt co rre c tly aw a rd e d the res id u a ry e sta te to P h ill ip s, b u t th a t b o th c o u rts e rre d in fin d in g th a t th e w ill c re a ted a c o n d iti o n a l b e q u e st. H ow ever , w e have s t at ed that“[ a] n appel l at e courtm ay af f i r m a tr i al courti f

the corr ect
r e s u lt is re a c h e d , e v e n if th e tr ia l c o u rt re a c h e d th e [c o rr e c t] re s u lt f o r t h e w ro n g re a s o n s .” Met hodis t Hos p. v. R i char ds on , 909 So. 2d 1066, 1070 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng P uckett v. Stuckey , 6 3 3 S o . 2 d 9 7 8 , 9 8 0 (M is s . 1 9 9 3 ))
. ¶26
. F or the reas on s w e hav e dis cussed, the j ud gm ents of the C han cery C ou rt for the F i rs t J udi ci al D i s tr i ctof

H i nds C ount y, and the C our tof A ppeal s ar e af

f i r m ed. ¶ 2 7
. AF F I RM ED . W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N , P. J. , R A N D O LP H , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CH AN DL E R A ND P I E RC E , J J . , CO NC UR . KI NG , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .