Paula B. Hicks v. Mark S. Bowling
155 So. 3d 907
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- Herman Bowling executed a will in 2010 leaving his entire estate to son Mark S. Bowling (Steve) and disinheriting daughter Paula Hicks, except a house to Paula’s daughter. Documents were prepared and executed with attorney Greg Pirkle present; no family members attended the signing.
- Paula and Steve had recently settled litigation (Paula sued Steve over their grandmother’s estate), and Herman had previously placed $171,000 in Steve’s account; that money was frozen during litigation.
- After Herman’s death in 2012, Steve probated the will; Paula filed a will contest and sought to set aside certain inter vivos transfers from Herman to Steve, his wife, and Steve’s LLC.
- Bench trial was held (no jury). Steve, as proponent, admitted the will into evidence and called Pirkle to testify about will preparation and Herman’s competence and independent intent.
- Paula presented evidence of a confidential relationship between Herman and Steve and alleged undue influence, but produced no evidence that Steve participated in preparing the will or that suspicious circumstances (e.g., testator incapacity) attended its execution.
- The chancellor granted a Rule 41(b) dismissal after Paula rested; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the confidential relationship alone did not raise a presumption of undue influence for wills and that the proponent’s evidence (Pirkle) supported independent testamentary intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hicks) | Defendant's Argument (Bowling) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether confidential relationship alone raises presumption of undue influence in a will contest | Confidential relationship between Steve and Herman was enough to presume undue influence and shift burden to Steve | Mississippi precedent requires more than just a confidential relationship for wills; must show suspicious circumstances or beneficiary participation | Court held confidential relationship alone does not raise presumption for wills; presumption requires additional suspicious circumstances or beneficiary involvement |
| Burden-shifting once presumption arises — whether Steve had to present additional evidence after Paula rested | If presumption arose, court should have required Steve to disprove undue influence (clear and convincing) before dismissing | Steve, as proponent, led evidence (including Pirkle); his presented evidence already satisfied the clear-and-convincing standard, so dismissal was proper after Paula rested | Held no improper burden shift: because Steve had already presented testimony sufficient to rebut any presumption, dismissal under Rule 41(b) was proper |
| Standard governing bench-dismissal after plaintiff rests (Rule 41(b)) | Chancellor applied incorrect standard by dismissing before full adjudication | Chancellor applied Rule 41(b) requiring judge to view evidence fairly and deny dismissal only if obliged to find for plaintiff | Held chancellor applied correct Rule 41(b) standard and did not err in dismissing after fair view of plaintiff’s evidence |
| Validity of challenge to inter vivos transfers given will left entire estate to Steve | Confidential relationship sufficed to challenge inter vivos transfers and require Steve to rebut | Even if presumption applied to transfers, Steve already offered testimony meeting the clear-and-convincing standard; plus issue became moot because will gives estate to Steve | Held transfers claim moot given will; court also found Steve’s evidence rebutted any presumption as to transfers |
Key Cases Cited
- Croft v. Adler, 115 So. 2d 683 (Miss. 1959) (mere confidential relationship does not alone raise presumption of undue influence in will contests; presumption requires beneficiary participation or suspicious circumstances)
- Estate of Laughter, 23 So. 3d 1055 (Miss. 2009) (reaffirming that confidential relationship alone is insufficient to raise undue-influence presumption in wills)
- Wright v. Roberts, 797 So. 2d 992 (Miss. 2001) (burden-shifting framework: once presumption arises, beneficiary must prove by clear and convincing evidence absence of undue influence and independent testamentary intent)
- Harris v. Sellers, 446 So. 2d 1012 (Miss. 1984) (discussed as precedent but interpreted in light of Croft to require more than a confidential relationship for wills)
- Murray v. Laird, 446 So. 2d 575 (Miss. 1984) (factors for disproving undue influence include testator’s knowledge, deliberation, and independent action)
- Estate of Smith, 722 So. 2d 606 (Miss. 1998) (procedural context on proponent’s prima facie case and evidentiary burdens in will contests)