Mississippi Court Upholds Will Contest Rulings, Denies Attorney’s Fees

In The Estate of Green v. Michini, the Mississippi Court of Appeals recently affirmed several key decisions from a lengthy legal battle over the will of Walter Green. The case, which involved conflicting wills from 2004 and 2010, also included disputes over life insurance proceeds, joint accounts, and attorney's fees.

Background

Walter Green passed away in 2010. His son, Douglas Green, sought to probate a 2004 will, which split the estate between Walter's three children and gave specific devises to Douglas. However, Walter's daughter, Angela Michini, presented a later 2010 will that significantly altered the distribution, primarily benefiting her and excluding Douglas. The family fought over which will should control and whether undue influence played a role in the creation of the 2010 will.

In 2012, after a three-day trial, the George County Chancery Court rejected the 2010 will, ruling it was the product of undue influence by Angela. The court found Angela had taken her father to an attorney while Douglas was hospitalized and had him sign a new will. She also altered his life insurance policy to name herself as the sole beneficiary. The 2004 will, which had been drafted under different circumstances, was admitted to probate.

Life Insurance Proceeds and Joint Accounts

The probate of the 2004 will did not end the disputes. Douglas claimed that Angela wrongfully changed the beneficiary on their father’s life insurance policies and took money from a joint account after his death. The trial court found Angela had exerted undue influence over her father to usurp the insurance policies, ordering the return of the $106,000 in benefits to the estate but denied Douglas’s request for interest on the returned proceeds.

Angela successfully defended against the claim regarding the joint account. The court ruled that joint accounts belong to all account holders and passed outside of Walter's estate after his death, meaning that Angela's actions were lawful under joint ownership rules.

Attorney's Fees

Douglas also sought to have his legal fees covered by the estate for his efforts to overturn the 2010 will. The trial court, however, only awarded a fraction of the requested fees. The court found that while Douglas’s actions in contesting the will benefitted him personally, they did not benefit the estate. As a result, the court reduced the attorney's fees from over $93,000 to about $4,000, only covering work directly related to managing the estate.

Appeal Rulings

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings. It held that Douglas's request for interest on the life insurance proceeds was procedurally barred because the argument for interest was not presented adequately at the lower court level. Additionally, the appellate court upheld the trial court's discretion in denying most of the attorney's fees, agreeing that the majority of legal work did not benefit the estate.

Angela's cross-appeal, which argued that the life insurance proceeds should not have been returned to the estate, was procedurally barred due to her failure to cite relevant statutes or legal precedent.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals upheld all rulings from the trial court, affirming the decisions regarding the life insurance proceeds, joint accounts, and attorney’s fees. The case underscores the complexity of probate litigation and the careful scrutiny courts apply to undue influence claims and estate administration.