In re Will fo Moses. Trust and Estates 2019 Falldocx PDF

Preview

Summary

Trust & Estates 2019 Fall course; Casebook: Dukiminier - Case Brief and Lecture Notes...

Description

Name: In re Will of Moses Court: SC of MS Date: 1969 Citation: 227 So.2d 829 Procedural History: Chancellor found undue influence and denied probate. Holland appealed. Facts: Fannie Moses was married 3 times and all 3 died. During the 2nd marriage She made friends with Clarence Holland, an attorney 15 years younger. After the death of her 3rd husband, he became her lover until she died at 57. During the 6-7 years prior to death, she had health problems and became an alcoholic. 3 years before death, she made a will leaving everything to Holland drafted by Shell and independent lawyer who didn’t tell Holland about the will. Fannie’s older sister contested the will. Issue: Did Holland exert undue influence? Holding: Yes. They were lovers and even tho he knew nothing about the will, he had a client fiduciary relationship with her. Reasoning: Fannie was an alcoholic and flattered by Hollands attention she was hoping for marriage. Sufficient evidence to find a confidential, fiduciary relationship and existed at the date she signed the will. So presumption of undue influence. Ovecome only by evience that she had independent advice and counsel devoted to her interest. Shell respected, didn’t know about their relationship, never represented her befor or after. Knew Holland and that he was a lawyer. She seemed sound and sober, knew her property, , but he asked her for better descriptions of it. Later, she sent in tax receipts for descriptions and he prepared the will and mailed it to her. She phoned him back making a change giving Holland a more valuable piece of property. He rewrote it and sent ti to her. There were no questions and no discussion about Holland being preferred to the exclusion of her blood relatives. No discussion of theire client attorney relationship. He wote it according to her instructions. She came back and signed it and it was witnessed by two secretaries. There was no meaning ful advice from Shell so Holland does not meet the burden of overcoming the presumption. Intimate relationship between Holland and Fannie is relevant. Dissent: Robertson – she was a good businesswoman, strong personality, witnesses attested to that. Her manner of living embarrassed her sisters and she was estranged from them. Holland was not involved at all in the preparation of the will. Nothing in the record that says alcohol affected her willpower or ability. Shell determined she was competent and acting of her own free will. She also spoke to another attorney friend

who she asked to give the will to Shell when she died and that it was exactly what she wanted in the will. She couldn’t have been more clear. Concurrence: Definitions: Notes:...