When a presumption of undue influence arises, then the proponent of the will bears the burden to rebut the presumption with clear and convincing evidence that the will was not the result of undue influence. In re Estate of Dabney , 740 So.2d 915, 921 (Miss. 1999) (citing Croft v. Alder , 237 Miss. 713, 115 So.2d 683, 686 (1959) ). To rebut the presumption, the proponent must show three things: "(a) good faith on the part of the beneficiary, (b) the testatrix's full knowledge and deliberation of the consequences of her actions, and (c) the testatrix received the advice of a competent person disconnected from the beneficiary and devoted wholly to him."
With both gifts testamentary and gifts inter vivos, once the presumption of undue influence has been established, the burden of proof shifts to the beneficiary/grantee to show by clear and convincing evidence that the gift was not the product of undue influence. In reEstate of Dabney, 740 So.2d 915, 921 (Miss. 1999). I. DID A CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP EXIST BETWEEN EMMA JANE AND ROBERTS?
(1) whether one person has to be taken care of by others, (2) whether one person maintains a close relationship with another, (3) whether one person is provided transportation and has their medical care provided for by another, (4) whether one person maintains joint accounts with another, (5) whether one is physically or mentally weak, (6) whether one is of advanced age or poor health, and (7) whether there exists a power of attorney between the one and another.In re Dabney v. Hataway, 740 So.2d 915, 919 (¶ 12) (Miss. 1999). "With both gifts testamentary and gifts inter vivos, once the presumption of undue influence has been established, the burden of proof shifts to the beneficiary/grantee to show by clear and convincing evidence that the gift was not the product of undue influence."
(1) whether one person has to be taken care of by others, (2) whether one person maintains a close relationship with another, (3) whether one person is provided transportation and has their medical care provided for by another, (4) whether one person maintains joint accounts with another, (5) whether one is physically or mentally weak, (6) whether one is of advanced age or poor health, and (7) whether there exists a power of attorney between the one and another.In re Dabney v. Hataway, 740 So. 2d 915, 919 (¶ 12) (Miss. 1999). "With both gifts testamentary and gifts inter vivos, once the presumption of undue influence has been established, the burden of proof shifts to the beneficiary/grantee to show by clear and convincing evidence that the gift was not the product of undue influence."
Factors in determining confidential relationship between testator and beneficiary include : (1) Whether one person has to be taken care of by others, (2) Whether one person maintains close relationship with another, (3) Whether one person is provided transportation and has their medical care provided for by another, (4) Whether one person maintains joint accounts with another, (5) Whether one is physically or mentally weak, (6) Whether one is of advanced age or poor health, and (7) Whether there exists power of attorney between one and another.Estate of Dabney, 740 So.2d 915, 919 (¶ 12) (Miss. 1999) (citations omitted). "Suspicious circumstances surrounding the creation of the will also raise the presumption of undue influence."
¶ 30. Foster argues that Laughter had a confidential relationship with Williams. If true, this could create a presumption of undue influence, which Williams would then have to rebut with clear and convincing evidence. In re Estate of Reid, 825 So.2d 1, 5 (Miss. 2002) (citing In re Estate of Dabney, 740 So.2d 915, 921 (Miss. 1999)). ¶ 31. A confidential relationship is "a relationship between two people in which one person is in a position to exercise dominant influence upon the other because of the latter's dependency on the former arising either from weakness of mind or body, or through trust[.
Once a confidential relationship is found the burden shifts to the beneficiary to disprove the presumption of undue influence by clear and convincing evidence. In re Estate of Dabney, 740 So.2d 915, 921 (Miss. 1999); Griffin v. Armana, 687 So.2d 1188, 1192 (Miss. 1996).
Once established, the burden of proof shifts to the beneficiary to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence, that the will is not the product of undue influence. Est. of Dabney, 740 So. 2d 915, 921 (¶19) (citing Croft, 115 So. 2d at 686).
(1) whether one person has to be taken care of by others, (2) whether one person maintains a close relationship with another, (3) whether one person is provided transportation and has their medical care provided for by another, (4) whether one person maintains joint accounts with another, (5) whether one is physically or mentally weak, (6) whether one is of advanced age or poor health, and (7) whether there exists a power of attorney between the one and another. In re Estate of Dabney, 740 So.2d 915, 919 (¶ 12) (Miss.1999). If the chancellor finds that a confidential relationship exists between the grantee and grantor, the inter vivos gift—here, the deed to the Henley property—is presumptively invalid. In re Estate of Reid v. Pluskat, 825 So.2d 1, 5 (¶ 13) (Miss.2002).
In the event that evidence is conflicting, a jury is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimony. In re Estate of Dabney v. Hataway, 740 So.2d 915, 919 (¶ 11) (Miss. 1999) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). DISCUSSION