Matter of Estate of Vick

12 Citing cases

  1. Last Will & Testament of Richard Baker Prichard v. Arceneaux

    No. 2022-CA-01035-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2024)

    This is his business, and his business alone." In re Est. of Vick, 557 So.2d 760, 765 (Miss. 1989). Therefore, "the most solemn obligation any court can have [is] to see that the true intent of the testator is carried out."

  2. Beebe v. Family Mgmt.

    380 So. 3d 905 (Miss. 2024)

    Yet this Court emphasized that "one of ‘the most solemn obligation[s] any court can have [is] to see that the true intent of the testator is carried out.’ " Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Sullivant v. Vick (In re Est of Vick), 557 So. 2d 760, 765 (Miss. 1989)). Moreover, it stated that "[t]here is no Constitutional right more jealously safeguarded than the absolute freedom of a testator to dispose of his own property as he chooses."

  3. Estate of Bakarich v. Bakarich

    337 So. 3d 1078 (Miss. 2022)

    Olin v. Richards (In re Est. of Blackburn) , 299 So. 3d 781, 787 (Miss. 2020) (quoting Sullivant v. Vick (In re Est. of Vick ), 557 So. 2d 760, 765 (Miss. 1989) ). And one of "the most solemn obligation[s] [of] any court [is] to see that the true intent of the testator is carried out."

  4. Estate of Necaise v. Necaise (In re Necaise)

    CASE NO. 11-52718-KMS (Bankr. S.D. Miss. Aug. 28, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Nor were there any findings regarding any representations made by the Debtors to Plaintiffs Garland Necaise and/or Game Necaise. Moreover, fraud was alleged in the Chancery Court action; however, the Chancellor did not make any specific findings of fraud.See In re Estate of Vick, 557 So. 2d 760, 767 (Miss. 1989) (discussing distinctions between fraud and undue influence; a finding of "undue influence need not involve the use of false and fraudulent representations or untrue statements"). The Chancery Court judgment is insufficient to establish the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A); therefore, summary judgment should be denied as it relates to this claim.

  5. Estate of Blackburn v. Richards

    299 So. 3d 781 (Miss. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    As the chancery court stated, one of "the most solemn obligation[s] any court can have [is] to see that the true intent of the testator is carried out." In re Estate of Vick , 557 So. 2d 760, 765 (Miss. 1989) (citing Costello v. Hall , 506 So. 2d 293 (Miss. 1987) ). "[T]here is no Constitutional right more jealously safeguarded than the absolute freedom of a testator to dispose of his own property as he chooses." Id.

  6. Cvitanovich-Dubie v. Dubie

    125 Haw. 128 (Haw. 2011)   Cited 53 times
    Holding that the moving party's “allegation of nondisclosure by an adverse party,” could not support the movant's HFCR Rule 60(b) motion (citing Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 96 Hawai‘i 408, 431, 32 P.3d 52, 75 (2001) )

    Hence, while undue influence involves domination of a person and "overcoming a person's free agency or free will so that the person is unable to keep from doing what he or she would not otherwise have done[,]" fraud and misrepresentation involve an inducement of "a person to exercise his or her free will mistakenly based on false information." Rawlings v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins., 78 S.W.3d 291, 301 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2001); see In re Estate of Vick, 557 So.2d 760, 767 (Miss. 1989) (noting that the "basic ingredient" of fraud is that the victim is "deceived through the use of false information, so that his free will or free agency, of which he is not deprived, is exercised upon the basis of false information"). Though "the similarity between fraud and undue influence has often been pointed out, there is a very clear cut difference between the two concepts":

  7. Estate of Blount v. Papps

    611 So. 2d 862 (Miss. 1993)   Cited 13 times

    Matter of Estate of Dedeaux, 584 So.2d 419, 421 (Miss. 1991) citing Yeates v. Box, 198 Miss. 602, 609, 22 So.2d 411, 413 (1945), Stovall v. Stovall, 360 So.2d 679, 681 (Miss. 1978), In the Matter of the Estate of Vick, 557 So.2d 760, 765 (Miss. 1989). In determining the testator's intent, in the absence of ambiguity, this Court is limited to the `four corners' of the will itself.

  8. Whitworth v. Kines

    604 So. 2d 225 (Miss. 1992)   Cited 17 times

    1991) (Hawkins, P.J., dissenting); Marsalis v. Lehmann, 566 So.2d 217, 221 (Miss. 1990) (Hawkins, P.J., dissenting) ("This bright line rule has served this state well for almost two centuries."); Matter of Estate of Vick, 557 So.2d 760 (Miss. 1989); Estate of McRae, 522 So.2d 731 (Miss. 1988); Mullins v. Ratcliff, 515 So.2d 1183 (Miss.

  9. Matter of Estate of Woodall

    593 So. 2d 471 (Miss. 1992)   Cited 2 times

    "We cannot in this case unravel the secrets behind the bond between parent and child. . . . [Yet] There is generally a subtle recognition by one family member of what tune to play to get another member of the family to dance." Matter of Estate of Vick, 557 So.2d 760, 767 (Miss. 1989); Jamison v. Jamison, 96 Miss. 288, 51 So. 130 (1910). The chancellor in this case found, about which there is no dispute, that there was a confidential relationship in fact between Mr. Woodall and Eva Nell, in which she was the dominant party.

  10. Will of McCaffrey v. Fortenberry

    592 So. 2d 52 (Miss. 1991)   Cited 12 times

    Further, there is a presumption of undue influence which arises from a confidential relationship. Matter of the Estate of Vick, 557 So.2d 760, 769 (Miss. 1989); Harris v. Bradley, 539 So.2d 1040, 1041-42 (Miss. 1989); Matter of Will of Adams, 529 So.2d 611, 614-15 (Miss.