Opinion ID: 1860015
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did goodwin and roberts offer clear and convincing evidence such as would overcome the presumption of undue influence?

Text: When deciding whether the beneficiary under a will has overcome a presumption of undue influence, we employ the three part test set out in Mullins v. Ratcliff, 515 So.2d 1183 (Miss. 1987). Under this test, the presumption is overcome if the beneficiary has proven by clear and convincing evidence: (1) Good faith on the part of the beneficiary; (2) the testator's full knowledge and deliberation of his actions and their consequences; and (3) independent consent and action on the part of the testator. Mullins, 515 So.2d at 1193; see also In re Estate of Harris, 539 So.2d at 1041-42. In the instant case, the record contains sufficient proof to satisfy each of the three prongs. Regarding the good-faith requirement, the chancellor found that Roberts had never misused his power of attorney, and that he had not even reimbursed himself for gas money for the trips from Texas. The evidence also shows that Roberts and Goodwin had been taking care of Grantham for several years before Grantham drafted the new will. Further, there was no evidence that the beneficiaries of the 1980 will were aware of the existence, much less the terms, of the old will until it was found among Grantham's papers during a search for hospital insurance forms. And when it was found, Goodwin and Roberts freely shared its contents with the other relatives. The second prong, that the grantor had full knowledge of the deliberations and consequences of her actions was also supported by clear and convincing evidence. Grantham's doctor testified that in his opinion, she was aware of what she was doing. The attorney offered similar testimony. The only conflicting evidence on this point was provided, not surprisingly, by several of the contestants. The Chancellor was entitled to weigh the evidence and determine that the proponents' witnesses were more credible than those who testified for the contestants. Lastly, the evidence demonstrates that Grantham exhibited independent consent and action when executing the 1980 will. When attorney Spinks asked her who she wished the beneficiaries to be under the new will, she pointed to Roberts and Goodwin and verbally confirmed her choice. Further, Grantham personally tore her old will into four pieces and then asked Spinks to destroy it further. The case for independent consent and action would have been even stronger if Spinks had requested Roberts and Goodwin to leave the room and if he had questioned Grantham more closely concerning the property she wished to devise and concerning her relationships with other family members. See In re Estate of Harris, 539 So.2d at 1042-43 (proponents of will clearly overcame presumption of undue influence where attorney who prepared will met with testatrix outside presence of beneficiaries and asked testatrix about property she owned and about her living relatives). Given the circumstances of this case, however, the evidence is sufficient to clearly and convincingly show that Roberts and Goodwin did not substitute their intent for that of Grantham. We hold that the chancellor did not manifestly err in finding that any presumption of undue influence had been overcome by clear and convincing evidence.