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 6 - CT - 0 1 1 3 3 - S CT I N T HE MAT T

ER OF T

HE L AS T

W I L L AN D T ES T AMENT OF M AZ I E W I L CHER, DE CE

AS ED : L ONNI E F AU L K NE R, Z AC HAR Y F AU L KN ER AN D BENJ AM I N FAULKNER
v. T HOMASK

A R L WI L C HER , EX

E C UTOR OF

T HE ES T AT E OF M AZ I E WI L CHER, DE CE

AS ED , AN D CONNI E W I LCHER ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 08/ 2006 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. W I LLI AM J OSEPH LU TZ COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LE AKE COUNTY CHAN CER Y COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : RO BE RT L OUI S GOZ A SAM UEL SUTH ERLA ND GO ZA AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : AL AN D. RH E A DEX TER C. NETTLES NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - REA L PROPERTY 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 - 11/ 06/ 2008 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 , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hom as K ar l W i l cher , exec ut or of the es t at e of M azi e W i l cher , and C onni e W i l cher b ro u g h t su it t o se t as id e a n d c a n c e l a d e e d c o n v e y in g re a l p ro p e rty fro m C o n n ie W ilch e r to L o n n ie F au lkn er, Z ac h ary F au lkn er, an d B en jam in F au lkn er. T h e L ea k e C o u n ty C h an ce ry C our tgr ant ed s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof T hom as K ar l W i l cher , ther eby s ett i ng as i de the

### The e xte nt or nat ureof Conni e’ s handic ap i s not expl ained. 1 

### Connie ’s firs t c ousin, Hi lda Denne , is the mot

her of Lonni e and thegrandm othe r of 2 

### Zac har y and Be njamin. Hilda ’s father (Les te r Wal ton) and Mazi e wer e brothe r and si st er . 2 conveya nce. O n appeal , t hi s cas e w as ass i gned t o the C our tof A ppeal s , w hi ch af

f i r m ed the tri al co urt ’s g ranto f sum m ary j ud gm ent. A ft er the C ou rto f A pp eal s denied the F aulkners’
m o ti o n for reh ea ri n g , the F au lkn ers fil ed a p eti ti o n for w ri t of ce rt iora ri, w h ich th is C o u rt gr ant ed. U pon cons i der at i on, w e r ever s e the j udgm ent s of the C our to f A pp eal s and the C hance ry C our tand r em and t hi s cas e t o the C hance ry C our tof L eake C ounty f

orf ur ther pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th t hi s opi ni on.

F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2. M azi e W i l cher ( M azi e) , a w i dow , di ed i n 1991, l eaving a t w el ve- acr e tr act of r eal p ro p e rty lo c a ted in L e a k e C o u n ty . M a z ie h a d in h e rited th is p ro p e rty fro m h e r fa th e r. M a z ie
w as su rviv ed b y h er d au g h ter, C o n n ie W il ch er (C o n n ie), w h o is he r on ly ch il d an d so le he ir
at - l aw undert he l aw s of des centand di s tr i but i on i n thi s s t at e. M azi e and Conni e occ upi ed th e p ro p e rty a s th e ir h o m e ste a d f o r m a n y y e a rs. A fte r h e r m o th e r’s d e a th , C o n n ie, w h o is han dicap p ed , c o n ti nu ed to r esi de o n the tw el ve acres w i th the hel p o f other i nd i vidual s, i ncl udi ng T hom as K ar l W i l cher , unt i l D ece m ber2002, w hen s he w as conf i ned t o a nur s i ng hom e. A s hor tt i m e l at er, a w arr anty deed da t ed J anuary 4, 2003, w as f i l ed i n the Leake 1 C ounty C hance r y C l erk’ s off i ce on Ja nuary 6, 2003, and re cor ded i n B ook 268, atPage 257. T h is d e e d p u rp o rte d ly b o re C o n n ie’ s s ig n a tu re a n d c o n v e y e d th e tw e lv e a c re s to L o n n ie F a u lk n e r, Z a c h a ry F a u lk n e r, an d B e n jam in F a u lk n e r (th e F a u lk n e rs) a s jo in t ten a n ts w ith 2

### Mazie w as Hild a’s aunt, Lo nn ie’s g reat aunt, an d Z acharyandBen jamin’s g reat, great aunt. Thoma s Ka

rl ’s fathe r and Maz ie ’s husband, J immy, we refirs t c ousins; the re for e, 3 

### Co nn ie andTh omas K arl are cou sins. 3 f ul l r i ght s of

s ur vi vor s hi p, r es ervi ng a l i f e es t at e i n C onni e. T he dee d r ef l ect ed thatthe
cons i der at i on pai d w as $10, 799, and the dee d l i kew i s e cont ai ned the f ol l ow i ng l anguage : C o n n ie W il ch er is the so le su rviv ing h eir-at -l aw o f he r m o ther, M az ie W il ch er, w ho di ed i nt es t at e J an. 1, 1991. M azi e W i l chera cqui r ed s ai d pr operty by the L as tW i l l and Test amentof her f at her, H
. G
. W al t on, dat ed Sept ember16, 1 9 3 9 , rec o rd e d in W ill B o o k 3 , P a g e 2 3 0 , an d p ro b a ted in c a u se N o . 5 1 6 3 in th e C h a n c e ry C o u rt o f L e a k e C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. H . G . W a lto n a c q u ire d sa id pr operty by deed f

r om L
. I
. W al t on, etux, dat ed J anuary 20, 19 38 , r ecor ded i n Book 43, Page 208, r ecor ds of the Leake Count y C hance ry C l erk’ s O f f i ce. ¶3. T hom as K ar l W i l cher ( T hom as K ar l ) beca m e aw ar e of the exi s t ence of the deed a nd 3 obj ect ed, s t at i ng thatC onni e w as of a dvance d a ge and di d nothave the capaci ty t o s i gn t he deed. L es s than a m onth l at er , by deed dat ed Ja nuary 31, 2003, the pr operty w as conveye d b ac k t o C o n n ie f

o r th e sam e d o ll ar am o u n t. T h is d ee d w as fi led in the L e a k e C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C ler k ’s o ffic e o n J a n u a ry 3 1 , 2 0 0 3 , an d re c o rd e d in B o o k 2 6 8 , at P a g e 6 0 4 . A lv in R oy W r i ght , J r . , the att orney w ho d r af t ed the dee d, as ked the Faul kner s t o r econve y t he pr operty t o C onni e af

t erT ho m as K arl and K ather i ne W i l cheral l eged thatC onni e di d not have the capa ci ty t o s i gn the dee d, acc us ed hi m ( W r i ght ) of comm i t t i ng f

r aud, and thr eat ened to su e h im
. O n F eb rua ry 6 , 2 0 0 3 , the fi rstd ee d o f co n v ey an ce from C o n n ie t o the F au lkn ers
w as agai n f

i l ed i n the Leake Count y C hance ry Cl erk’ s of f i ce and r ecor ded i n Book 268, Page

### Connie ’s si gnat urepurporte dly appe ar s on the firs t dee d. Thealte re d finaldee d had 4 

### an “ X” on the si gnat

urel ine
. Other

di sc repanc ie s inc ludethe fol lowing: The firs t dee d had a dateof J anuary 4, 2003, and cont ained thepurport ed si gnat ure s of Margar et Phil lips and Martha Bec kham

as witnes se s; wher ea s the f ina l de ed ha d a dat e of Febr uar y 6, 2003, and cont ained the pur

port ed s ignatures of Ke vin Hor ne and Margare t Phi ll ipsas witnes se s. The re cord provi des no expl anati on for the sedis cr epanci es . Thefirs t de ed ( Connie -t o-theFau lkn ers) andthe secon d deed(the Faulkners-to -Co nn ie) were notarize d byWrig ht, while the th ird d eed (Co nn ie-to-th e-Fau lkn ers) was n otarizedbyDo t Merch ant, th e Leak e Co unty Chanc er y Cle rk. Item Tw o o f the w ill pro vid ed, inter a lia , that “Iappoint Thom as Karl Wi lc her , a s 5 

### Trus te e, to s eeaf

te r the property Ihavedevi se d to [ Connie ] , and to us e i t f or he r s oleuseand bene fi t. He i s t o se e that

[Conni e’ s] nee ds areprovi ded f or, and if it

is nec es sary t o se llany of the property Ile aveat

my de ath t o pay f

or he r m ainte nanc e and living e xpens es and he r me dic alor nur sing or hos pit albil ls , the n hes hal l havethe ri ght to do s o.”I te m Threeof the wil l provi ded that thede vis e of therea l prope rty wa s for Connie ’s li fe , and if

any r em ained after Co nn ie’s death , su ch remainin g p rop erty w ou ld g o to Th omas K arl, abso lutelyandin fe e s im ple
. 4 7 0 1 . H o w e v e r, th e s ig n a tu re lin e o f th e d e e d h a d b e e n a ltere d
. T h e F a u lk n e rs to o k tit le to 4 the real property w i tho ut a t i t l e exam i nati on and al l eged l y, they w ere un aw are of M az ie’s unpr obat ed w i l l
. T he Faul kner s as s er t , how ever , thatboth T hom as K ar l and C onni e had
a c tu a l k n o w led g e o f th e e x iste n c e o f th e w ill a n d its p ro v isio n s . A lso , the F a u lk n e rs s tate thatthey r el i ed on the a d va l or em t ax r ece i pt s f r om 1992 thr ough 2002, on f i l e i n the Leake C o u n ty C o u rth o u se, w h ich re v ea led tha t th e p rop erty w as a sses sed to C o n n ie as the o w n er. ¶4. Shor t l y ther eaf

t er , on February 18, 2003, T hom as K ar l f i l ed a pet i t i on t o pr obat e the L ast W il l and T estam en t of M a z ie W il ch er. T h e w il l w as a d m itted to p rob ate a n d L ett ers T es t ament ary w er e i s s ued t o T hom as K ar l
. I n the w i l l , the s ubj ectl and w as l ef tt o T hom as K ar l as trus t ee and r emai nderm an, w i th a l i f e es t at e t o C onni e. A s exec ut orof the Est at e, 5 T h o m a s K arl fi led a co m p lai n t aga inst th e F au lkn ers to se t asi d e the d ee d
. C o n n ie

### 5

s ubs equent l y j oi ned as a pl ai nt i f f t o thi s caus e, al l egi ng thats he w as s ubj ectt o undue i nf l uence due t o herm ent al and phys i cal condi t i on; thats he w as notabl e t o r ead a nd under s t a nd the d oc umen t s wi th w hi c h s he was p r e s e nt e d t o e xe c ut e ; a nd tha ts he was not pr ovi ded an opportuni ty t o obt ai n i ndepende ntl egal couns el
. A ddi t i onal l y, T hom as K ar l and C onni e cont end thatthe Faul kner s t ook advant age of C onni e’ s w eake ned s t at e by w ai t i ng
u n t i l s h e wa s c o n f

i n e d t o a n u r s i n g h o me t o h a v e h e rs e c r e t l y c o n v e y th e p r o p e r ty t o t h e m. ¶5
. A f

t erdi s covery and a hear i ng , the Chan c e ry Courtof Lea ke County, Chanc el l or W i l l i am Jos eph Lut z pr es i di ng, gr ant ed s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof T hom as K ar l and the E sta te. T h e c h a n c e llo r fo u n d th a t, sin c e th e re w a s a b re a k in th e c h a in o f titl e , C o n n ie d id
no to w n the pr operty and ther ef or e, coul d notconvey i tt o the Faul kner s . T he cha ncel l or f ur therf ound thatthe Faul kner s w er e on not i ce of a pos s i bl e br eak i n the chai n of t i t l e, and i n or derf orthe r eal pr operty t o be m arket abl e, ei theran est at e m us thave been opene d oran adj udi cat i on of hei r s hi p m us thave t aken pl ace pr i ort o the pr operty bei ng deede d. T he F a u lk n e rs tim e ly a p p e a led fro m the ch a n c e ry co u rt’s ju d g m e n t, a n d w e a ss ig n e d th is c a se to the C ou rtof A pp eal s.

PROCEEDI NG S I N THE C OU RT OF APPE ALS ¶6
. T he Faul kner s ra i s ed si x i s s ue s be f or e the Cour tof

A pp e a l s , w hi c h we r e s t a t e as f ol l ow s : ( 1) w hetherthe dea th of M azi e W i l cher crea t ed a gap i n the t i t l e; ( 2) w hethert he Faul kner s ar e pr ecl uded f r om bei ng i nnocentpurc has er s as a mat t erof l aw ; ( 3) w hetherthe tr ia l c o u rt e rre d in p re c lu d in g a trial o n a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se s; (4 ) w h e th e r it w a s e rro r to pr ecl ude the af

f i r m at i ve def

ens es of l ache s a nd e s t oppel ; ( 5) w hetheri tw as err ort o pr ecl ude

### 6

th e a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n s e s u n d e r th e e q u itab le m a x im s re q u irin g c lea n h a n d s a n d th e d u ty to d o eq u ity w h en seek ing eq u ity ; an d (6) w h ethe r th e tri al co u rterred in n o t ord ering the re turn
o f th e p u rc h a se p ric e . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a d d re ss e d th e first fiv e iss u e s in th e u lti m a te ques t i on o f w het herthe tr i al courterr ed by gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm entagai ns tt he F a u lk n e rs, th e re b y se tti n g a sid e a n d c a n c e lin g th e c o n v e y a n c e . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls decl i ned r evi ew of

the s i xth i s s ue “be caus e the i s s ue of the Faul kner s ’ r ei m bur s ementf ort he pur chas e pr i ce w as neverbr oughtbef or e the l ow ercourt . . . . ” Faul knerv. W

ilcher , 2007 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 7 5 9 , * 4 ¶4 (M iss. C t. A p p . N o v . 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 ). ¶ 7
. In a d d re ss in g th e iss u e o f w h e th e r th e trial c o u rt e rre d b y g ra n tin g su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls s ta te d , in tera lia : O rd in a rily , the F a u lk n e rs’ b e lief a n d re lian c e o n C o n n ie W ilch e r’s im p licit r epr es ent at i on thats he ow ned the s ubj ectpr operty bef ore t he conve yance w oul d qual i f

y f orthe def

ens e of l ache s orequi t abl e es t oppel
. H ow ever , the c h a n c e llo r fo u n d th a t th e F a u lk n e rs’ re lian c e w a s o v e rc o m e b y th e ir d u ty to i nv est i gate the t i t l e t o the prope rty. T hu s, the co urtheld that nei ther defense ap p li es so as to q u ali fy th e F au lkn ers into th e c ateg o ry o f i n n o ce n t pu rch ase rs o f re a lty
. W e ag re e . T h e F a u lk n e rs w e re c h a rg e d w ith th e d u ty to in v e stig a te the tit le t o the p rop erty b efo re pu rch asin g th e rea lty an d th e fail u re t o en su re th e p r o p e r ty ’ s ma r k e t a b i l i ty i s f a t a l t o th e F a u l k n e r s ’ c l a i m.

“ A b re a k in th e c h a in o f t itle re n d e rs th e title to t h e re a lty u n m a rk e ta b le .” Ferrara v. W

alters , 919 So. 2d 876, 883 (¶17 ) ( M i ss . 2005)
. H avi ng f ound thatthe Faul kner s w er e noti nnocentpur chas er s , w e agr ee w i th the cha ncel l or that the d eed m ustbe setasi de. V i ew i ng th e ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost favorabl e to t he party againstw ho m the m oti on has bee n m ade, the F aulkners, w e fin d th a t th e re w a s n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t lef t f o r th e c o u rt to deci de. Fau l kn er , 2 00 7 M i s s . App. LEX I S 7 59 , * *7
- 8, ¶¶1 1- 12
. A f t e rthe Fa ul kn e r s ’ mot i on f or
r ehea r i ng w as deni ed by the C our tof A ppeal s , the Faul kner s f i l ed a pe t i t i on f

orw r i tof

### 7

ce rt iorari, w h ich this C o u rtg ran ted. In the irp eti ti o n , the F au lkn ers req u ested tha t th is C o u rt
cons i derthr ee i s s ues : ( 1) w hetheri n the abs ence of a w i l l , C onni e w oul d have i nher i t ed g o o d ti tl e to th e p rop erty im m ed iat ely u p o n M az ie’s de ath, w h ich s h e c o u ld effec tiv e ly
c o n v e y to a n y th ird p a rty w illin g to a c c e p t it ; (2 ) w h e th e r th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
m i sapprehen ded t hi s C our t ’ s opi ni on i n Ferrara v. W alters , 9 1 9 S o . 2 d 8 7 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ), by h ol di ng tha tM a z i e ’ s d e a th c r e a t e d a “ ga p” i n the t i t l e whi c h c ou l d on l y be cur ed by an ad jud icati o n o f he ir sh ip or an ad m inistrati o n of M az ie’s estate; an d (3) w h ethe r th e F au lkn ers had a duty t o i nves t i gat e the t i t l e and a r e pr ecl uded f r om a s s ert i ng the doctr i nes of l ache s and
e sto p p e l. DI S CU S S I ON ¶8. I n r evi ew i ng a tr i al court ’ s gr antordeni al of s um m ary j udgm ent , the w el l
- es t abl i s hed st and ard of r eview i s de novo
. O n e S o u th , In c . v. Ho llo w e ll , 96 3 S o. 2d 11 56 , 11 60 (M i ss. 2007) ( ci t i ng Hubbard v. W ansley , 954 So. 2d 951, 956 ( M i s s . 2007) )
. Sum m ary j udgm ent i s appr opr i at e w her e “the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es and admi s s i ons
on f i l e , t og e the rwi th the a f f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s ho w tha tthe r e i s n o ge nu i ne i s s ue as t o any
m at eri al factand that the m ov i ng party is enti t l ed to a j ud gm ent as a m at t er of l aw . ” M i ss. R
. Ci v. P. 56( c)
. “A s um m ary j udgm entmot i on i s onl y pr oper l y gr ant ed w hen no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

actexi s t s . ” Jacks on Clini c f orW om en, P. A . v. Henley , 965 So. 2d 643, 649 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng P P G A rchitectu ral

Fin ishes, In c. v. L ow ery , 909 So. 2d 47, 49 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ); Mil

lerv. Meeks , 762 So. 2d 302, 304 ( M i s s . 2000) )
. “[ T ] he evi dence mustbe
v ie w e d in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e p a rt y a g a in s t w h o m t h e m o tio n h a s b e e n m a d e ."

### 8

O n e S o u th , 9 6 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 6 0 ; G r e e n v. Alle nda le Planting Co. , 954 S o. 2d 1032, 1037 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng P r i ce v. P urdue Pharm a Co. , 9 2 0 S o . 2 d 4 7 9 , 4 8 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 )). I . W HET HER I N T HE AB S ENCE OF A W I LL AND IM M E D IA T E L Y U P O N M A ZIE ’S D E A T H , C O N N IE I NH E RI T E D C L E A R T I T L E T O T HE P R OP E RT Y WHI CH S HE CO ULD EFF ECTI VELY CO NVEY TO ANY THI RD PARTY W I LLI NG TO AC CEPT I T. ¶9. T he Faul kner s ar gue thatthe chanc el l orand t he C our tof A ppeal s err ed i n hol di ng that th e d e a th o f a n o w n e r o f la n d c re a tes a g a p in th e c h a in o f title w h ic h re n d e rs it
unm er chant abl e unt i l ther e i s an admi ni s tr at i on of the es t at e oran adj udi cat i on of hei r s hi p. T hey as s ertthati n t he abs ence of a w i l l , t i t l e t o the r eal es t at e i m m edi at el y ves t ed i n C onni e,
as the s ol e hei r , underthe l aw s of des centand di s tr i but i on. T he Faul kner s st at e t hatthey had
no r eas on t o know or s us pectt hata w i l l exi s t ed; and thata t i t l e exa m i nat i on w oul d nothave
re v e a led a n y m o re in fo rm a tio n th a n th e y a lre a d y k n e w . T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d “ [i] t w o u ld
a p p e a r th a t th e re is no req u ire m e n t th a t a su it to es tab lish h e irsh ip m u st b e b ro u g h t at a ll. S u ch an interp re tati o n see m s rea so n ab le w h en o n e re m em b ers tha t t it le t o the d ec ed en t’ s pr operty aut om at i cal l y ves t s i n hi s l aw f ul he i rorhe i r s upon hi s death w i thouti ns t i tut i ng any l egal pr ocee di ngs . ” McLeod v. P r i ce , 506 So. 2d 289, 291 ( M i s s . 1987)
. “W hen any pe r s on
s hal l di e sei zed of

any es t at e of

i nher i t ance i n l ands , t enement s , and her edi t ament s not dev i sed, the sam e shal l descen d to hi s or herchil dren, and theird escend ants , in equa l part s.

. . .” M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 1 -1 -3 (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ). A b se n t a w ill , C o n n ie w o u ld h a v e tak e n tit le t o the pr operty vi a i nt es t at e s ucce s s i on, and a t i t l e exa m i nati on w ou l d nothave r evea l ed any thing m ore t o the Fau l kn ers .

### 9

¶10. T he Faul kner s al s o ar gue that they act ed r eas onabl y i n r el yi ng on C onni e’ s appar ent
ow ner s hi p, s i nce al l they knew w as thatConni e w as M azi e’ s s ol e hei ra nd thatno e s t at e had been ope ned, norw i l l admi t t ed t o pr obat e, i n t he t w el ve year s s i nce M azi e’ s death. T hey f ur theras s ertthatthe doctr i nes of l ache s a nd e s t oppel ba rThom as K ar l f r om pr obat i ng t he
w i l l tw el ve yea r s a f

t erM azi e’ s death a nd a f t erthey change d thei rpos i t i on i n r el i ance on t he fa c t th a t M a z ie d ied inte sta te. “A s a m a tter o f p u b lic p o licy an d a t co m m o n law a p e rso n in pos s es s i on of a w i l l , af

t ert es t at or ’ s death, has a duty t o pr oduce a nd f i l e i tw i th the pr oper part i es orcourt . ” In re S to b a ll’s E sta te , 2 1 1 M iss. 1 5 , 5 0 S o . 2 d 6 3 5 , 6 3 9 (19 5 1 ). In S to b a ll’s E sta te , St obal l ’ s ne i ghbor , Pr ather , c oncea l ed the exi s t ence of St obal l ’ s w i l l af

t er hi s death. W hen Pr atherl at eratt empt ed t o pr obat e the w i l l , thi s C our thel d: P rathe r' s w il ful co n ce alm en t of th e w il l and it s term s, an d h is f ail u re to rec o rd hi s deeds f

r om the devi s ees w er e the ca us es of the cha nge of po s i t i on by M u ll ins in relianc e o n the m isl ea d ing , frau d u lent, a n d w ron g ful a cts o f P rathe r. Pr ather i s est opped underthes e f act s f r om pr obat i ng the w i l l , and, s i nce Pr athercl ai m s the ent i r e i nt er es tdevi s ed underthe w i l l , the es t oppel ext ends t o any r i ght s w hi ch mi ghtacc rue underi t . T he el ement s of equi t abl e es t oppel m us tbe cons i der ed i n the l i ghtof al l the pec ul i arci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e, a n d o f a b a la n c in g o f t h e e q u itie s o f t h e re s p e c tiv e p a rt ie s . I d. at639- 40. A l though ourcas e l aw pr ovi des thatther e i s no s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons on p ro b a tin g a w ill, B e lt

v. A da ms , 125 M i s s . 387, 87 So. 666, 668 ( 1921) , a w i l l pr oponentm ay b e e sto p p e d fro m p ro c u rin g p ro b a te w h e re th e re w a s fr a u d u len t co n d u c t o r “ lo n g d e lay in p ro p o u n d in g th e w ill fo r p ro b a te d u rin g w h ich p ro p e rty o f th e e sta te w a s tra n sfe rre d to
s ubs equentpur chas er s f orval ue and w i thoutnot i ce of the w i l l
. ” I

d. a t 6 4 0
. See L ogan v. Sm ith , 229 M i s s . 513, 516-517, 91 So. 2d 707 ( 1956) ( one daught erof the t es t at ores t opped

### 10

to pro b ate w il l w h ere she an d he r si b li n g s pre v iou sly ga v e sw o rn testi m o n y th at th ey w ere h eirs-at -l aw an d n o w il l existed ). ¶ 1 1 . W h e n c o n s id e ri n g , in te ra lia , the s w orn af f i davi t s of H i l da D enne and A l vi n R oy W r i ght , J r . , the s w orn depos i t i on t es t i m ony of T hom as K ar l , C onni e, L onni e Faul knerand Z ac h ary F au lkn er, r ea l est ate tax rec eipts, an d the w il l and the d ee d s, a ll o f w h ich w ere
s ubm i t t ed as partof

the s um m ary j udgm entpr ocee di ngs , i tbe comes r eadi l y a ppar entthatt he chanc el l orerr ed i n gra nt i ng summ ary j udgm entw hen t her e w er e genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fa c t, su c h a s th e d e lay in p ro b a tin g th e w ill; w h e th e r T h o m a s K a rl sh o u ld b e e sto p p e d to pr obat e the w i l l tw el ve yea r s af t erM azi e’ s death; w hetherC onni e had a ctual know l edge of the w il l an d it s p rov isi o n s; w h ethe r th e F au lkn ers a cted rea so n ab ly in rely ing o n C o n n ie’s appar entow ner s hi p; w hetherthe w i l l cr eat ed a trus tand/ orconveye d a l i f e es t at e t o C onni e;
w hetherC onni e had the capaci t y t o exec ut e a de ed; w hetherC onni e w as underundue i nf l uence atthe t i m e s he exe cut ed the dee d; and, w hetherthe conduc tof an y of the part i es
w a s fr a u d u len t. F o r a ll o f th e se re a so n s, w e fin d th is iss u e to h a v e m e rit. I I . W HE TH ER THE CO URT O F AP PEALS M I S APP REHEN DED THI S COUR T’ S OP I NI ON I N FERRA RA V. W ALT ERS , 919 So. 2 d 8 7 6 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 5 ) BY H O LDI NG THAT M AZ I E’ S DEATH CREATED A “ GA P” I N THE TI TL E W HI CH COUL D O NLY BE CURED BY AN ADJ UDI CAT I ON OF HEI RS HI P OR AN ADM I NI S TRATI ON OF M AZ I E’ S ES TATE. ¶12. T he C our tof

A ppeal s di d notdi s cus s , nori n r eal i ty, appl y Ferrara v. W alters t o t he
cas e s ub j udi ce . T he C our tof A ppeal s s i m pl y pr ovi ded a one
- s ent ence expl anat i on f orthe p ro p o s itio n th a t “ [a ] b re a k in th e c h a in o f t itle re n d e rs th e title to th e re a lty u n m a rk e ta b le .”

### 11

Faul kner , 2 0 0 7 M iss . A p p . L E X IS 7 5 9 , * 8 , ¶1 2 ; Ferrara , 9 1 9 S o . 2 d a t 8 8 3
. Ferrara
a c tu a lly su p p o rts th e p rin c ip le th a t ti tle v e sts im m e d iate ly in th e h e irs u p o n th e o w n e r’s d e a th
a n d in th e a b s e n c e o f a w ill. Ferrara , 919 So. 2d at882- 883. T he cas e i nvol ved a c ont r act f orconveya nce of

r eal pr operty i n w hi ch the s el l er s had t aken t i t l e vi a qui t - cl ai m deed f r om th e h e ir s o f a d e c e a s e d o w n e r. I d. Pur s uantt o t he pr ovi s i ons of thi s contr act , the s el l erw as
re q u ire d to c u re a p e rc e iv e d d e fe c t in th e tit le p rio r to th e c o n su m m a tio n o f th e re a l es tate tr ans act i on. T hi s per cei ved def ecti n t i t l e w as cr eat ed by a de ed w hi ch w as devoi d of l anguage as t o the type of es t at e creat ed (i
. e. , t enanc y by the ent i r ety, j oi ntt enanc y, or t enanc y i n c om m on) , thus c r eat i ng by l aw a pr es um pt i on thata t enanc y i n comm on had bee n
cr eat ed as betw een hus band and w i f e. T her e had notbeen an adj udi cat i on of hei r s hi p, s o the b u y e r’ s a tto rn e y a d v is e d th a t th e title w a s d e fe c tiv e . I d. In th e b re a c h -o f-c o n tra c t law su it
a n d a p p e a l th a tf

o l l o we d , th i s Co u r td e t e r mi n e d th a tt h e p r o p e r ty wa s s u b j e c tt o c l a i ms b ro u g h t b y a n y h e ir s -a t- la w o f t h e d e c e a s e d p re v io u s o w n e r. I d. ¶13. T hi s C our ts t at ed that“as t enant s i n comm on, w hen M r . St r ong di ed i nt es t at e, hi s oneh a lf u n d iv id e d in ter e st v e ste d in h is h e ir s a t law , an d M rs. S tro n g m a in tain e d a o n e -h a lf
u n d ivide d interest plus w h atev er fracti o n al i n terest sh e m ay h av e re ce ived as a n h eir of M r. St r ong. ” Id
. I n Ferrara , thi s C our tw as addr es s i ng the pr opos i t i on that“[ w ] hen the s el l er agrees t o convey pr operty by w arr anty deed, he w arr ant s thatthe t i t l e conve yed i s w i thout def ect , i
. e. , cl earand mar ket abl e. ” I d. a t 8 8 3 . T h o m a s K a rl a n d C o n n ie s e ize u p o n a fo o tn o te i n Ferrara f

orthe pr opos i t i on t hatany per cei ved br eak i n the cha i n of t i t l e r es ul t s i n the p ro p e rty b e in g u n m a rk e tab le a n d th a t m a rk e ta b ili ty c a n b e c re a ted o n ly b y fin a lly

### 12

adj udi cat i ng the r i ght f

ul hei r s hi p t o pr operty by ei theropeni ng an est at e orfi l i ng a pet i t i on t o es t abl i s h hei r s hi p. I

d. T hi s r el i ance upon Ferrara by T hom as K ar l and C onni e f ors uch a proposi t i on i s m i s pl ace d. A buyerm ay choos e t o t ake t i t l e s ubj ectt o any def ect , and ther ef or e, t i t l e i s mar ket abl e i f the pur chas eri s w i l l i ng t o a cce pti tw i thoutf ur therpr oof

of hei r s hi p. W e thus f

i nd thi s i s s ue t o have m er i ti nas m uch as the C our tof A ppeal s , as w el l as the cha ncel l or , e r r ed i n f i ndi ng thatthe t i t l e t o the s ubj ectr eal es t at e w as unm arket abl e due t o a br eak i n t he cha i n of t i t l e. I I I . W HETH ER THE FAULK NERS HAD A DUTY TO I NV E S T I GA T E T HE T I T L E AN D A RE P RE CL UD E D F RO M ASS ER TI NG TH E D O CT RI NE S OF LA CH ES AND ES TOPPE L. ¶14. A s a l r e a dy no t e d, i n t od a y’ s c a s e , a t i t l e i nv e s t i ga t i on w ou l d not ha ve r e ve a l e d a ny f ur theri nf

or m at i on t o the Faul kner s . O therthan a di s cl os ur e by Thom as K ar l orC onni e, ther e w as abs ol ut el y nothi ng t o i ndi cat e thata w i l l exi s t ed. St at ed di f f er ent l y, as not ed by the F aulkners, throug h co un sel , i n the r ecord b efor e us: Fi r s t , a t i t l e exa m i nat i on w ou l d have r evea l ed thatM azi e W i l cherw as the ow nerof t he pr operty, t hat no adm i ni s tr at i on of heres t at e had be en opene d and thatno pet i t i on t o det erm i ne herheir shi p had been f i l ed. Second, an in v e stig a tio n o f h e r d e a th a n d h e irsh ip w o u ld h a v e d e ter m in e d th a t M a z ie W ilch e r h a d in fa c t die d , th a t he r h u sb a n d h a d p re d e c e a se d h e r a n d th a t C o n n ie W i l cherw as herdaught er , onl y chi l d, and s ol e hei ratlaw all of w hi ch the [ Faul kner s ] al r eady knew a nd ne i thera pe t i t i on t o det erm i ne herhei r s hi p nor an admi ni s tr at i on of

heres t at e w oul d have pr oduced a di f f er entr es ul t . T he o n ly w a y fo r t h e s e f

a c ts to b e a lte re d w o u ld b e if [T h o m a s K a rl a n d C o n n ie ], w h o k n e w th a t a w ill e x iste d , h a d c o m e fo rw a rd a n d e ith e r p ro d u c e d th e w ill ora[ t ] l eas tdi s cl os ed thi s very m at er i al f acti ns t ead of

w ai t i ng m or e than tw el ve yea r s and then pr obat i ng the w i l l af t erthe [ Faul kner s ] pur chas ed the l and i n good f

ai th r el i ance on the f

act s and ci r cumst ance s as they exi s t ed due to th e s ile n c e a n d in a c tio n o f [ T h o m a s K a rl a n d C o n n ie ].

### 13

A s p re v io u sly sta ted , th e e lem e n ts o f e q u itab le e sto p p e l m u st b e c o n sid e re d w h e re th e re is fr a u d , u n d u e d e la y , o r w illf u l c o n c e a lm e n t. In re S to b a ll’s E sta te , 5 0 S o . 2 d a t 6 3 9 -6 4 0 . W e l i kew i s e f

i nd thi s i s s ue t o have mer i ts i nce ther e w as a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al f

actf orthe tr ia l c o u rt to d e te rm in e a s to th e a p p lic a b ility o f t h e d o c tr in e o f e q u ita b le e s to p p e l. CO NC L US I ON ¶15. F o r the rea so n s stat ed , the jud g m en ts o f the C o u rt o f A p p ea ls an d the ch an ce ry c o u rt
ar e r eve r s e d a nd thi s c a s e i s r e mand e d t o the Chan c e ry Courtof Lea ke County f

orf urthe r pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th t hi s opi ni on. ¶16. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND D I AZ , P . J J . , GRAVE S , DI CKI NS ON AND RAN DO LPH, J J . , CO NC UR . EAS LEY, J . , DI S S ENTS W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . L AMAR , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .