Anita White v. Charles Tommy White, 234 So.3d 1210

Bill (Charles W. White) and his son Tommy (Charles T. White) were partners owning convenience stores and multiple real-property tracts acquired in 1981, 1992, and 1994, treated and maintained as partnership property.
In 2005 Tommy bought Bill’s partnership interest but they did not execute deeds transferring real property; Tommy later produced a 2005 typed partnership instrument stating the partnership was dissolved effective Dec. 31, 2004 and transferring “all its property/assets” to Tommy, signed and witnessed by Bill.
Bill gave Tommy a durable power of attorney; in 2009, amid family disputes over Bill’s care, Tommy used it to execute quitclaim deeds transferring property to himself.
Anita (Bill’s widow and executrix) sued to set aside the 2009 quitclaims and to have property revert to Bill’s estate under the residuary clause of Bill’s will.
The chancery court (on remand from this Court) found the 2005 instrument valid and sufficient to transfer partnership property to Tommy, concluding the property was adeemed before Bill’s death; it declined to resolve fiduciary-duty issues relating to the 2009 deeds.
This appeal challenges (1) the chancery court’s consideration of the 2005 instrument and (2) whether that instrument sufficiently transferred Bill’s partnership interest in the real property.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Anita)	Defendant's Argument (Tommy)	Held
Whether the chancery court erred in considering and relying on the 2005 instrument	The 2005 instrument is inadmissible parol evidence because Bill’s will is unambiguous; extrinsic evidence of testamentary intent is barred	The 2005 instrument was not offered to show testamentary intent but to show the property was transferred (adeemed) before death, so parol-evidence rule does not bar its admission	Court held the 2005 instrument was properly considered because it was used to prove ademption, not to interpret the will, so admission did not violate the parol evidence rule
Whether the 2005 instrument sufficed to transfer Bill’s partnership interest in real property	The instrument’s property description is insufficient; it fails to identify the specific parcels so cannot effectuate transfer	The instrument, signed and delivered, transferred “all [partnership] property”; partnership records and deeds show the listed properties were partnership assets, curing any descriptiveness issues	Court held the 2005 instrument was a signed, delivered writing manifesting intent to transfer all partnership property; parol evidence and documentary record established identity of the premises, so the transfer was effective and property was adeemed before death

Kilpatrick v. Whitehall on MS River, 207 So. 3d 1241 (Miss. 2016) (standard of appellate review for chancery court findings)
Estate of White v. White, 152 So. 3d 314 (Miss. 2014) (prior opinion reversing dismissal and remanding for further proceedings)
Estate of Blount v. Papps, 611 So. 2d 862 (Miss. 1992) (parol evidence rule limits inquiry to four corners of an unambiguous will)
Ricks v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co. of Vicksburg, 2 So. 2d 344 (Miss. 1941) (writing other than deed or will can convey land)
Allen v. Boykin, 24 So. 2d 748 (Miss. 1946) (instruments will be construed to effectuate parties’ manifest intent despite inartful drafting)
Herod v. Robinson, 115 So. 40 (Miss. 1927) (defects in land description may be cured by parol evidence identifying premises)
Moffett v. Int’l Paper Co., 139 So. 2d 655 (Miss. 1962) (conveyance of all grantor’s property in a state can suffice to pass title without particular descriptions)