Estate of Regan v. Estate of Leblanc
179 So. 3d 1155
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Ramon Regan executed a preprinted "Last Will and Testament" on Feb. 7, 2008, signed by Regan, a notary (Beckham), and two witnesses.
- The will stated: "Upon my death, I want my property distributed as follows: All my estate, this includes monetary and real property." It did not name or describe any beneficiary.
- Regan died in 2011; a search revealed his sole heir at law was his aunt, Elsie Simm LeBlanc (later deceased; her son represented her estate).
- The Estate moved to declare the will invalid for failing to devise property to any beneficiary; Swilley (caregiver) claimed a scrivener’s error omitted her and her husband as beneficiaries and sought admission of parol evidence to show testamentary intent.
- The chancery court refused to admit parol evidence, found the will unambiguous but ineffective (no beneficiary named), and declared the will invalid; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the will is valid despite omitting a named beneficiary | Swilley: the will meets statutory formalities and evinces Regan's intent to devise his estate; omission was a scrivener's error and should not invalidate the will | Estate: omission of any beneficiary means the will fails to devise property and is therefore invalid | The will is invalid because it contains no devise or beneficiary; court may not supply or add a beneficiary to the instrument |
| Whether parol (extrinsic) evidence may be admitted to show testamentary intent | Swilley: extrinsic evidence (e.g., Beckham affidavit) should be admitted to show Regan intended to leave his estate to the Swilleys | Estate: parol evidence is improper because the document is clear on its face (it simply lacks a beneficiary) | Parol evidence inadmissible where the will is unambiguous; courts cannot rewrite a will or insert beneficiaries |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Polite, 218 So. 2d 843 (discussing that a paper intended as a will is ineffective unless execution meets statutory requirements)
- Stovall v. Stovall, 360 So. 2d 679 (testator's expressed intent governs; courts cannot make a will by parol testimony)
- DeJean v. DeJean, 982 So. 2d 443 (court must look to the four corners of the instrument; if no ambiguity, no extrinsic evidence)
- In re Last Will & Testament of Roland, 920 So. 2d 539 (parol evidence inadmissible where will language yields only one interpretation)
- Hemphill v. Robinson, 355 So. 2d 302 (courts may not amend, add to, or reform a will to create testamentary dispositions)
- In re Estate of Black, 135 So. 3d 181 (extrinsic evidence only allowed to resolve genuine ambiguities in disposition)