Last Will & Testament of Massingale v. Young
2016 Miss. App. LEXIS 539
Miss. Ct. App. Hist.2016Background
- Decedent Johanna Massingale executed an 8‑page will using an online will kit; pages 6–8 included her signature, three witness signatures, and a notary acknowledgment.
- A ninth page, separately typed in a different font and titled "Details of Johanna Massingale’s Wishes of Her Last Will and Testament," was later added; it named Haruhiko Murakami sole beneficiary and bore Johanna’s and Murakami’s signatures but no attesting witnesses.
- Murakami, Johanna’s friend, petitioned to probate the entire 9‑page document and was initially named executor; the chancellor probated the document but later faced a challenge to the ninth page’s validity.
- Johanna’s three attesting witnesses and the notary swore they did not see the ninth page or Johanna sign or publish it as part of her will.
- The decedent’s siblings (Appellees) moved for summary judgment to strike the ninth page as invalid and distinct from the probated eight pages; the chancery court granted summary judgment for the Appellees, preserving the first eight pages as the valid will for the time being.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Murakami) | Defendant's Argument (Siblings) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 9th page is part of the probated will or a separate document | The ninth page reflects Johanna’s testamentary intent and raises factual questions for trial | The ninth page is a separate, subsequent document lacking required formalities | Ninth page is a separate document; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the ninth page qualifies as a valid non‑holographic will/codicil | It is a valid testamentary instrument despite formatting differences | It lacks the statutory attestation (two witnesses present) and publication | Ninth page is invalid as a non‑holographic will/codicil under § 91‑5‑1 |
| Whether the first eight pages incorporated the ninth page by reference | The will can be read to manifest intent to incorporate auxiliary writings | The eight pages contain no reference identifying or incorporating the ninth page | No incorporation by reference; ninth page not part of will |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the record | Factual disputes (who prepared/observed signatures) preclude summary judgment | Witness affidavits and lack of evidence create no genuine issue of material fact | Summary judgment proper; Murakami failed to raise specific factual dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Polite, 218 So. 2d 843 (Miss. 1969) (wills must meet statutory formalities and are strictly construed)
- Estate of Regan v. Estate of LeBlanc, 179 So. 3d 1155 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (nonholographic wills/codicils require attestation by two credible witnesses)
- Estate of Griffith v. Griffith, 30 So. 3d 1190 (Miss. 2010) (attesting witnesses must observe testator execute, sign, publish, and declare the will)
- Ill. Cent. R.R. v. Jackson, 179 So. 3d 1037 (Miss. 2015) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Buckel v. Chaney, 47 So. 3d 148 (Miss. 2010) (nonmovant must set forth specific facts to defeat summary judgment)
- Hosemann v. Harris, 163 So. 3d 263 (Miss. 2015) (summary judgment burden and viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)