Patricia Ann True Schmidt v. James T. Jim True
220 So. 3d 276
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- Dorothy True died in February 2014 survived by four children: Patricia Ann (Ann), Mary, John (deceased August 2014), and James (Jim). John left a son, Jody; Jim has a son, Jamie; Frances (a predeceased daughter) left two daughters.
- Jim filed to probate an eight-page holographic will signed by Dorothy; pages bore non-original page numbers and contained handwritten deletions/insertions. The will named John and Jim as executors (John was already deceased when probate was filed).
- Ann and Mary filed a petition to contest the will, arguing it failed to meet holographic/non-holographic will formalities (signature placement, altered text, questionable page ordering).
- At hearing, witnesses testified they saw Dorothy sign the document in 2006; the chancery court found the will valid as a holographic will after reordering pages so Dorothy’s signature appeared last and denied the contest.
- On appeal, Ann and Mary argued the chancery court lacked jurisdiction because all persons interested in the will contest were not joined as required by statute; the Court of Appeals agreed and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the chancery court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the will contest without joining all interested parties | Ann/Mary: Statute requires joinder of all persons interested; failure to join deprives court of jurisdiction | Jim: Missing parties waived joinder issue or were adequately represented; joinder would not change result | Court: Requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to join necessary parties renders judgment void and must be set aside |
| Whether the document was a valid holographic will (formalities: signature placement, altered text, page order) | Ann/Mary: Signature not on last page as filed; alterations and non-original page numbers undermine validity | Jim: Most of the will in Dorothy’s handwriting; witnesses saw Dorothy sign; reordering pages can place signature last | Chancery court found will valid after reordering pages, but appellate court reversed on procedural/jurisdictional grounds (did not rule on merits) |
| Whether an absent interested party’s nonparticipation waives joinder requirement | Ann/Mary: Nonjoinder cannot be waived in will contests | Jim: Estate informed parties it would not participate; issue waived | Court: Nonjoinder is jurisdictional and cannot be waived; may be raised on appeal even if not raised below |
| Remedy when necessary parties are not joined | Ann/Mary: Judgment should be set aside and parties joined for a single contest | Jim: No substantive change would result; uphold probate | Court: Judgment void; reversed and case remanded for joinder and further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrett v. Bohannon, 621 So. 2d 935 (Miss. 1993) (judgment in a will contest entered without joinder of all necessary parties is void and must be set aside)
- Moore v. Jackson, 157 So. 2d 785 (Miss. 1963) (trial court lacks authority to hear a will contest until all persons interested are joined)
- Estate of Schneider, 585 So. 2d 1275 (Miss. 1991) (reaffirming that proceedings must await joinder of necessary parties in will contests)
- In re George's Estate, 45 So. 2d 571 (Miss. 1950) (in holographic wills, nothing appearing after the testator’s signature is effective)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (discussion on careful use of the term "jurisdictional")