Shepherd v. Jones
2015 Ark. App. 279
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- John H. Jones, terminally ill and in hospice, signed a will and a power of attorney on July 15, 2011; he died two days later. The will left the residue of his estate equally to his half-sister Marcia Jane “Janey” Shepherd and friend Madge Helm, with modest bequests to other siblings and a church. Estate valued at > $415,000, including significant savings bonds and two joint accounts with his aunt (who died four days before John).
- Arvest Trust petitioned to probate the will and be appointed personal representative; James Taylor Jones filed a contest to the will’s admission to probate. The trial court vacated the probate order, finding the will was not properly executed, John lacked testamentary capacity, and the will was procured by undue influence by Madge and Janey.
- Facts at hearing: John lived with his aunt Eula Ruth and relied on her and on Madge for care; John was very ill, medicated (morphine, Ativan), often nonresponsive in hospice, and was not told that his aunt had died. Madge recited the will’s terms to the attorney and handed specific dispositions to the drafter.
- Witness testimony conflicted: a hospice social worker and an expert physician opined John appeared to understand or was medically alert at times; family witnesses (notably Larry Jones) testified John was largely unconscious, unable to sign without assistance, and did not know of his aunt’s death or the extent of his assets.
- The trial court found a confidential relationship existed between John and Madge/Janey, that Madge procured the dispositions and instructed the attorney, that John lacked capacity at signing, and that the presumption of undue influence (from procurement and confidential relationship) was not rebutted. The court affirmed denial of probate on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jones) | Defendant's Argument (Shepherd) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Testamentary capacity — was John capable when will executed? | John lacked capacity; witnesses showed he was unconscious, medicated, and unaware of assets or aunt’s death. | Janey argued testimony attacked credibility and some medical evidence showed John was alert enough to answer questions. | Court held John lacked testamentary capacity; finding not clearly erroneous. |
| Undue influence — was the will procured by beneficiaries? | Madge and Janey procured the will: Madge directed terms to the attorney, concealed material facts, and signed other documents for John. Confidential relationship existed, shifting burden. | Janey argued no evidence of coercion or abuse; claimed will reflected John’s wishes as relayed. | Court found procurement and a confidential relationship; presumption of undue influence unrebutted; will procured by undue influence. |
| Execution formalities — was the will properly executed? | Contestant challenged validity; trial court ruled improper execution among other defects. | Janey argued proper execution; attorney and hospice witness attested to witnessing. | Court deemed it unnecessary to resolve because capacity and undue influence findings were dispositive; probate denied. |
| Burden of proof after procurement/confidential relationship | Procurement/beneficiary relationship shifts burden to proponent to disprove undue influence beyond reasonable doubt. | Proponent claimed compliance with formalities and testimony that John affirmed will. | Court applied burden-shift and found proponent failed to rebut; will invalidated. |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of the Estate of Kemp v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 433 S.W.3d 911 (Ark. App. 2014) (standard of review in probate matters and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Pyle v. Sayers, 39 S.W.3d 774 (Ark. 2001) (test is testator’s capacity at time will is signed)
- Sullivant v. Sullivant, 364 S.W.2d 665 (Ark. 1963) (mental competency and undue influence are closely related)
- Short v. Stephenson, 386 S.W.2d 501 (Ark. 1965) (definition of testamentary capacity and undue influence principles)
- McCulloch v. Campbell, 5 S.W. 590 (Ark. 1887) (classic definition of undue influence as depriving testator of free agency)
- Simpson v. Simpson, 432 S.W.3d 66 (Ark. App. 2014) (procurement and confidential-relationship doctrines shift burden to will proponent)
- Medlock v. Mitchell, 234 S.W.3d 901 (Ark. App. 2006) (existence of confidential relationship is a factual determination and supports presumption of undue influence)