Opinion ID: 1786690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did roberts rebut the presumption of undue influence by clear and convincing evidence?

Text: ¶ 24. This Court has previously stated that the important factors for the appellate court to consider in determining whether the grantee/beneficiary used good faith are: (a) the determination of the identity of the initiating party in seeking preparation of the instrument, (b) the place of the execution of the instrument and in whose presence, (c) what consideration and fee were paid, if any, and (d) by whom paid, and (e) the secrecy or openness given the execution of an instrument. Id. ¶ 25. Roberts and her son had both tried to buy Emma Jane's land on several occasions. With Emma Jane's permission, Roberts's son had put a cabin built by their grandfathers on the land in the 1970's. He stated that it was his desire that the property with which he had been familiar all his life, and on which he had hunted over the years, remain in his family. He testified that he offered to buy the land from Emma Jane, but that she definitely did not want to sell it. He later testified that he never tried to buy Mrs. Wright's part, rather the remaining one-third interest owned by Emma Jane's closest blood relatives in Birmingham, Alabama. Roberts herself testified: I went out there, and it was hot, it was hot as it could be. And I said, `Emma, why don't you sell me this land and let me help you get somebody to put you in a bathroom and things that you need and an air conditioner.' Homan testified, regarding the land, that [e]ver time, Mrs. Mamie Roberts tried to buy it. ¶ 26. Roberts stated that she did not consider Homan capable of caring for himself and that she had arranged for him to be admitted to a personal care home while Emma Jane was in the hospital. Yet at the time of trial (three years later) Homan was still living independently ... even gardening. ¶ 27. Emma Jane's primary concern was that Homan was cared for after her death. Regarding her power of attorney over the Wrights' affairs, Roberts testified that she had believed she might have to sell some of the timber to take care of Homan, because he needed eye surgery. Nevertheless, her attorney prepared documents giving her Emma Jane's timber. In her brief she stated: There was no need for either of them, especially Homan, to own any land beyond the reserved life interest. Additionally, Lee was never paid for his services, nor was anyone ever billed. ¶ 28. Roberts's only evidence of good faith was her testimony that she intended only to do what was in Homan's best interest, since she had promised Emma Jane she would take care of Homan for the rest of his life. This testimony is insufficient to rebut the undisputed evidence to the contrary. ¶ 29. Roberts selected the attorney, arranged for the preparation of the documents in which she was a beneficiary, and attended their signing. Emma Jane was presented the documents while lying sick in her hospital bed. Any consideration given by Roberts was dubious, at best, consisting primarily of an illusory promise to take care of Homan in the future. ¶ 30. Roberts has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she acted in good faith in her dealings with Emma Jane.
¶ 31. This Court has not hesitated to set aside instruments where there were suspicious circumstances regarding their execution. In one such case involving an elderly couple, no consideration was given for a deed, the grantors thought they were signing a will, the wife was physically exhausted by caring for her husband, both lacked mental capacity, and one thought they could still sell the property. Ladner v. Schindler, 457 So.2d 1339 (Miss. 1984). This Court has stated: Factors important to address the grantor/testator's knowledge, at the time of execution of any instrument are (a) his awareness of his total assets and their general value, (b) an understanding by him of the persons who would be the natural inheritors of his bounty under the laws of descent and distribution or under a prior will and how the proposed change would legally affect that prior will or natural distribution, (c) whether non-relative beneficiaries would be excluded or included and, (d) knowledge of who controls his finances and business and by what method, and if controlled by another, how dependent is the grantor/testator on him and how susceptible to his influence. Murray, 446 So.2d at 578. ¶ 32. Emma Jane's physician, Dr. Coghlan, had seen her near the time she signed the documents. He testified: (1) Because she was in congestive heart failure she might not have been getting adequate oxygen to her brain, and it may have affected her mental ability some; (2) She would not take the oxygen which would affect her ability to remain conscious to a certain extent; (3) In noting that he would not rely on her ability to understand the effect of signing a deed conveying real property on that date, he stated, ... if I were dealing in some kind of business deal with her, I would not have thought she was competent to make the business arrangement... I had a problem with the decisions that she made in regard not to eat, not to take her medication, and not to do anything along that line that would have been contributing to her health. ¶ 33. During that period of time, Dr. Coghlan noted that she was probably unable to concentrate due to the state of her health. It was his impression that Emma Jane was senile prior to and including the time during which she signed the documents. ¶ 34. In addition to Dr. Coghlan's testimony, there was other evidence of Emma Jane's lack of capacity. Testimony by Roberts and the lawyer's secretary showed lack of capacity. Roberts conceded Emma Jane seemed confused and believed that she was writing a check for legal services. The lawyer's secretary testified that after signing away her real property by deed, Emma Jane then attempted to convey by will land which she had just deeded away. ¶ 35. Roberts also admitted that Emma Jane asked for, but was not given, her glasses. Regarding the documents, Roberts stated, She couldn't read `em very well. She wanted her glasses.... They were in the drawer right there by her, in her bed, in the stand.... Emma Jane's confusion at the time of signing clearly created doubt as to whether she knew the quantity of her estate. ¶ 36. Roberts has failed to present clear and convincing proof that Emma Jane exhibited full knowledge and deliberation of her actions.
¶ 37. We have previously stated that [t]he participation of the beneficiary/grantee, or someone closely related to the beneficiary, arouses suspicious circumstances that negate independent action. Harris v. Sellers, 446 So.2d 1012, 1015 (Miss.1984). ¶ 38. This third prong of the Murray test for rebutting the presumption of undue influence, was formerly stated by this Court as, Advice of (a) competent person, (b) disconnected from the grantee and (c) devoted wholly to the grantor/testator's interest. Murray, 446 So.2d at 578. However, three years later this Court revised the third prong, stating: The independent advice prong of Murray has been read too strictly. Considering the heavy burden placed upon one seeking to overcome the presumption of undue influence, we find it necessary to redefine the third prong of the Murray test. This we do to the end that the power our law vest in property owners to make bona fide inter vivos gifts not be practically thwarted by often impossible evidentiary encumbrances. We declare that the appropriate third prong of the test is a requirement that the grantee/beneficiary prove by clear and convincing evidence that the grantor/testator exhibited independent consent and action. Mullins v. Ratcliff, 515 So.2d at 1193. ¶ 39. There is no proof that Emma Jane or Homan spoke with any other attorney independent of Armon Lee, the Roberts's attorney, before or after signing the documents. When Roberts was asked if she were aware of whether Emma Jane or Homan had ever talked to any attorney other than Armon Lee regarding the documents, she stated that she was not. Roberts and her son used Armon Lee extensively as their attorney. Roberts testified that neither Emma Jane nor Homan had ever contacted Armon Lee to perform legal services. ¶ 40. Roberts in one instance stated that she procured the preparation of the documents, but in another she denied this. It appears that the documents were prepared before the Wrights were consulted, because Lee's secretary, based upon personal knowledge, believed that Homan could not write his name and had typed spaces for his mark to be attested by witnesses. It was Roberts's son who brought to the secretary's attention the fact that Homan could sign his name. If the Wrights had, in fact, consulted the lawyer, he would have likely determined such information. Furthermore, the documents were prepared in early December, and some were not signed until the next month. Lee's secretary testified that Emma Jane was hesitant in signing the will. Even Roberts stated: I didn't know whether she was [going to sign] or not. She wanted to think about it, and she wanted to think about selling the place.... Roberts told Emma Jane that if they kept the secretary too long, it would cost them money. In an attempt to convince Emma Jane to sign, Roberts told her that if she did not sign, her property would go to the state and the lawyers. Roberts's brief unconvincingly states that this was not an effort to coax Emma Jane, rather, merely an expression of frustration. ¶ 41. It is clear from the record that Roberts failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Emma Jane exhibited independent consent and action.