Matter of Estate of Vick

2 Citing cases

  1. 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.

  2. 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":