Opinion ID: 1613998
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Williams unduly influenced Laughter in the making of the May will.

Text: ¶ 30. Foster argues that Laughter had a confidential relationship with Williams. If true, this could create a presumption of undue influence, which Williams would then have to rebut with clear and convincing evidence. In re Estate of Reid, 825 So.2d 1, 5 (Miss.2002) (citing In re Estate of Dabney, 740 So.2d 915, 921 (Miss.1999)). ¶ 31. A confidential relationship is a relationship between two people in which one person is in a position to exercise dominant influence upon the other because of the latter's dependency on the former arising either from weakness of mind or body, or through trust[.] Id. (quoting Hendricks v. James, 421 So.2d 1031, 1041 (Miss.1982)). Whether a confidential relationship exists is determined based on the following factors: (1) whether one person has to be taken care of by others, (2) whether one person maintains a close relationship with another, (3) whether one person is provided transportation and has their medical care provided for by another, (4) whether one person maintains joint accounts with another, (5) whether one is physically or mentally weak, (6) whether one is of advanced age or poor health, and (7) whether there exists a power of attorney between the one and another. In re Estate of Holmes, 961 So.2d 674, 680 (Miss.2007) (citing Wright v. Roberts, 797 So.2d 992, 998 (Miss.2001)). ¶ 32. Here, Williams has conceded that Laughter was cared for by others. At various times, especially during the last few months of his life, Laughter was cared for by Williams, Foster, the hospital, and the nursing home. [7] ¶ 33. Williams also had a close relationship to Laughter. Williams was Laughter's sister, and she testified that she had always looked after him because [she] was the older of the two, and he had been [her] responsibility after [their] parents passed away to help as much as [she] could. See Wright, 797 So.2d at 998 (close relationship found on the basis of being related and having had a long friendship). Williams also testified that she had brought Laughter food when he was sick prior to his entering the hospital, and that after he entered the hospital, she stayed with him there. ¶ 34. Also, there is evidence suggesting that Laughter was physically and mentally weak. The Garner letter stated that Laughter was very ill and unable to handle his affairs and had been since the time of his divorce from Foster. As discussed above, the letter also indicated that Laughter could not remember deeding a joint ownership in his home to Foster a mere twenty-four days earlier. ¶ 35. Laughter was nearly eighty years old and in poor health at the time of the May will, as well. Williams conceded as much. Laughter had been hospitalized for two months and was in the nursing home, where he would pass away two months later. It is also undisputed that Laughter had given power of attorney to Williams. ¶ 36. In this case, therefore, at least five of the seven factors used to determine whether a confidential relationship exists are present. There is evidence that Laughter was physically and/or mentally weak, of advanced age, and in poor health. He was taken care of by others, and had given power of attorney to Williams, who maintained a close relationship with him. Therefore, we find that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Laughter was sufficiently dependant on Williams to create a confidential relationship between them. ¶ 37. The mere existence of a confidential relationship, however, is not in itself sufficient to raise a presumption of undue influence. Wright, 797 So.2d at 999 (quoting Croft v. Alder, 237 Miss. 713, 723-24, 115 So.2d 683, 686 (1959)). Such a presumption would arise only in certain circumstances. These circumstances are: where the beneficiary has been actively concerned in some way with the preparation or execution of the will[;] or where the relationship is coupled with some suspicious circumstances, such as mental infirmity of the testator; or where the beneficiary in the confidential relation was active directly in preparing the will or procuring its execution, and obtained under it a substantial benefit. Croft, 237 Miss. at 723-24, 115 So.2d at 686 (1959) (internal citations omitted). ¶ 38. In this case, Williams was not actively involved in the execution of the May will. In fact, she was not even in the room when it was executed. But this does not end the inquiry. The Garner letter's statements that Laughter was extremely ill and unable to handle his affairs and that Laughter did not remember deeding his home to Foster suggest that Laughter may have lacked mental capacity as early as March 28. This is evidence that Laughter may have had a mental infirmity. ¶ 39. Moreover, Chatham testified that he was originally contacted by Williams, via Garner, and that Williams had made the arrangements for Chatham to meet with Laughter to execute the May will. This, coupled with the extent of Williams's benefits under the May will, is consistent with what we have termed suspicious circumstances. See In re Last Will and Testament and Estate of Smith, 722 So.2d 606, 612 (Miss.1998) (citing In re Estate of Harris, 539 So.2d 1040, 1041 (Miss.1989)) (beneficiaries drove testatrix to the attorney's office). ¶ 40. Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Foster, we find that sufficient evidence was presented such that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Laughter and Williams had a confidential relationship and whether Laughter was thus unduly influenced by Williams.