Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 12/03/96 OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 95-CA-01120 COA

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EVA KATHLEEN PHILLIPS RATLIFF, DECEASED: STACY MCMURTREY BUFKIN APPELLANT v. WILLIAM D. RATLIFF III APPELLEE

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WILLIAM JOSEPH LUTZ COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MADISON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: LEE B. AGNEW, JR. KATIE S. EIDT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: CHARLES L. DUNN NATURE OF THE CASE: CONTEST OF HOLOGRAPHIC WILL TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: CHANCELLOR FOUND HAND WRITTEN PORTION ON AN ENVELOPE CONTAINING A TYPEWRITTEN WILL DID NOT QUALIFY AS A HOLOGRAPHIC WILL.

BEFORE FRAISER, C.J., COLEMAN, AND MCMILLIN, JJ. FRAISER, C.J., FOR THE COURT:

The sole question before this Court is whether the writing in question constitutes a valid holographic will. Because the writing fails to meet the basic statutory requirements of a holographic will, we affirm.

FACTS On December 7, 1984, Eva Kathleen Philips Ratliff (Eva) executed a last will and testament devising her property to her two children, Kathy Ratliff Watson and William D. Ratliff III, except her personal jewelry, which she left to her granddaughter, Stacy McMurtrey Bufkin (Bufkin). Later, Eva made a handwritten note on the envelope of the December 7, 1984 will, which stated: This new will is in my own handwriting. Kathleen P. Ratliff or Mrs. W. D. Ratliff Jr. Enclosed will. This Will is null and void as of feb [sic] 14th, 1992. Instead, I leave everything that I own in property, cash, CDS, jewelry, car and so forth to my granddaughter Stacy McMurtrey [Bufkin].

Eva died on May 2, 1995. Bufkin offered the holographic will for probate. The only question before the chancery court was whether the writing on the envelope constituted a valid holographic will. The chancery court determined that writing on the envelope did not constitute a valid holographic will. DISCUSSION WHETHER THE NOTATION ON THE ENVELOPE OF THE DECEMBER 7, 1984 WILL IS A VALID HOLOGRAPHIC WILL

Stacy argues that: The Appellant's position is that the Court should have found that the writting [sic] on the outside of the envelope constituted the decedent's holographic will regardless of whether or not it meet [sic] each and every statutory criterion. The testimony is replete with eye witness [sic] accounts to the decedent's deliberate intentions to change her previous will and, in effect, void same and to leave all to her granddaughter, the Appellant. Your Appellant would show that the intent of any laws governing wills should be that the wishes of the deceased with regard to the distribution of the assets of the estate be up held [sic] and if it is proven that there was no fraud or undue influence involved then the form of a holographic will should survive.

Stacy's argument ignores recent, controlling Mississippi Supreme Court precedent. Holographic wills are creatures of statute recognized in section 95-5-1 of the Mississippi Code. This section provides: Every person eighteen (18) years of age or older, being of sound and disposing mind, shall have power, by last will and testament, or codicil in writing, to devise all the estate, right, title and interest in possession, reversion, or remainder, which he or she hath, or at the time of his or her death shall have, of, in, or to lands, tenements, hereditaments, or annuities, or rents charged upon or issuing out of them, or goods and chattels, and personal estate of any description whatever, provided such last will and testament, or codicil, be signed by the testator or testatrix, or by some other person in his or her presence and by his or her express direction. Moreover, if not wholly written and subscribed by himself or herself, it shall be attested by two (2) or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator or testatrix.

Miss. Code. Ann.

Download Stacy McMurtrey Bufkin vs. William D., III Ratliff.pdf

Mississippi Law