## Facts

- Jerry Lee Saucier died in 2003 at age 37.
- He executed two wills: a 2002 holographic will under which much of the estate would have passed to his estranged son, and a 2003 typewritten will leaving all property to Susan W. Tatum.
- There was no dispute that both wills were authentic.
- Tatum and Jerry dated for at least a year before his death, saw each other daily, were physically intimate, and discussed marriage.
- As Jerry’s health declined, Tatum regularly assisted him (including housekeeping and taking him to treatment and medical appointments).
- Tatum helped procure the will form for the 2003 will and accompanied Jerry to a bank to execute it; after learning the first attempt was defective, she returned with him to complete a valid execution.
- The 2003 will was executed at a bank before two disinterested subscribing witnesses and a notary.
- Jerry’s father, James Saucier, petitioned to probate the 2002 holographic will; Tatum filed a competing petition to probate the 2003 typewritten will.
- After trial, the chancery court admitted the 2003 will to probate; James appealed, arguing undue influence.

## Issues

1. Whether a confidential relationship and the beneficiary’s involvement in the will’s preparation/execution created a presumption of undue influence as to the 2003 will.
2. Whether Tatum rebutted any presumption of undue influence by clear and convincing evidence of (a) good faith, (b) the testator’s full knowledge and deliberation, and (c) the testator’s independent consent and action.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment admitting the 2003 will to probate.
- The court treated the relationship and Tatum’s participation as sufficient to trigger a rebuttable presumption of undue influence.
- The court held that Tatum rebutted the presumption by clear and convincing evidence, including transparent execution procedures and testimony supporting the testator’s competence and independent choice.
- Any misstatement of standards by the chancery court was deemed harmless because the record contained substantial evidence supporting the result.
- The appellate court deferred to the chancellor’s factual findings and credibility determinations.

## Legal Principles

- When a confidential relationship exists between a testator and a beneficiary who actively participates in preparing or executing a will, a rebuttable presumption of undue influence arises.
- The beneficiary may rebut the presumption only by clear and convincing evidence showing:
  - good faith by the beneficiary,
  - the testator’s full knowledge and deliberation regarding the will and its effects, and
  - the testator’s independent consent and action.
- Formal execution in a public setting with disinterested witnesses and evidence of the testator’s competence can support rebuttal of undue influence.
- Appellate courts generally defer to a chancellor’s factual findings in will contests where supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld probate of the later, typewritten will because the caregiver-beneficiary’s involvement triggered a presumption of undue influence, but the presumption was overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the testator knowingly and independently executed the will in good faith circumstances.


In re Estate of Saucier, 908 So. 2d 883 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005)