## Facts

- Mary L. Reid, a 78-year-old widow, developed a close relationship with Michael B. Cupit, who was decades younger.
- Cupit became involved in Reid’s personal and legal affairs, including acting as her attorney and later obtaining a power of attorney.
- Cupit arranged for preparation of a warranty deed conveying Reid’s home and land to him.
- Cupit assisted Reid in preparing a holographic will leaving her property to him; Reid later executed a formal attested will that substantially mirrored the earlier will and also favored Cupit.
- Reid later adopted Cupit as her son.
- After Reid’s death, Thomas J. Pluskat sought estate administration and challenged the will, the adoption, and the deed as products of Cupit’s fraud and undue influence.
- The chancery court found a confidential relationship and set aside the will, adoption, and deed; Cupit appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the challenge to the warranty deed was time-barred and whether the deed was void due to undue influence and fraud.
2. Whether Pluskat had standing to challenge the adoption, whether the challenge was time-barred, and whether the adoption was procured by fraud on the court.
3. Whether the attested will was void due to Cupit’s undue influence.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court, in a substituted opinion on rehearing, largely affirmed the chancery court’s judgment setting aside the challenged transactions.
- The court held that evidence supported a finding of a confidential relationship and Cupit’s active participation in procuring instruments that benefited him.
- The court concluded that a presumption of undue influence arose and that Cupit failed to rebut it by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court rejected limitations defenses in the circumstances presented, including where fraud and undue influence in a confidential relationship were alleged and litigated within estate administration.
- The court approved setting aside or disregarding the adoption to the extent it was procured by fraud on the adoption court.

## Legal Principles

- When a confidential or fiduciary relationship exists and the beneficiary actively participates in procuring a will, deed, or comparable instrument in the beneficiary’s favor, a presumption of undue influence arises.
- The proponent-beneficiary bears the burden to rebut the presumption with clear and convincing evidence that the transfer reflected the donor’s independent, voluntary intent.
- Factors showing active procurement include initiating contact with counsel, arranging execution, directing preparation, and otherwise controlling the process by which the instrument is created.
- In cases involving fraud and undue influence within a confidential relationship, limitations defenses may be unavailable or delayed where the wrong is not reasonably discoverable or where the fiduciary relationship affects accrual.
- A judgment or decree procured by extrinsic fraud may be set aside or treated as ineffective in related proceedings, including estate contests.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the chancery court’s invalidation of estate-planning and transfer devices favoring a dominant confidant who helped procure them, applying Mississippi’s presumption of undue influence and placing the burden on the beneficiary to prove independent, voluntary action by the decedent.


In re Estate of Reid, 825 So. 2d 1 (Miss. 2002)