## Facts

- Fannie Traylor Moses, a widowed testatrix, owned and managed significant real and farm property and was described as independent and business-capable.
- Clarence H. Holland, an attorney younger than Moses, served as her lawyer and for several years also had an intimate relationship with her.
- Moses executed a 1957 will benefiting her sister and other blood relatives; after Moses’s death, that will was admitted to probate in common form.
- In 1964, Moses executed a later will drafted by attorney Dan Shell that revoked prior wills and left virtually the entire estate to Holland.
- After Moses died in 1967, Holland petitioned to probate the 1964 will in solemn form and to set aside the prior probate of the 1957 will.
- Moses’s closest surviving blood relatives contested the 1964 will, alleging undue influence by Holland, lack of testamentary capacity, and that the 1957 will was the true last will.
- Contestants also sought cancellation of Holland’s asserted interests in certain real property, alleging those interests were obtained through undue influence.
- Shell had no prior relationship with Holland and testified Moses was not intoxicated, understood the will, and requested at least one change to ensure a valuable property passed to Holland.
- The chancery court, after a bench trial, found undue influence, denied probate of the 1964 will, confirmed the 1957 will’s probate, and cancelled Holland’s real-property interest as a cloud on title.

## Issues

1. Whether a presumption of undue influence arose because Holland stood in a confidential/fiduciary relationship with Moses and was the principal beneficiary under the challenged will.
2. Whether Shell’s role as draftsman constituted sufficient “independent advice and counsel” to rebut any presumption of undue influence.
3. Whether the chancery court erred in confirming probate of the 1957 will and cancelling Holland’s asserted real-property interest as procured by undue influence.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court’s decree.
- The 1964 will was properly denied probate as the product of undue influence.
- The probate of the 1957 will was properly confirmed.
- Holland’s asserted real-property interest was properly cancelled as a cloud on Moses’s title.
- The court deferred to the chancellor’s detailed factual findings, concluding they were supported by substantial evidence.

## Legal Principles

- When a beneficiary stands in a confidential or fiduciary relationship to the testator (including attorney-client) and receives a substantial benefit under the will, a presumption of undue influence arises.
- The presumption shifts to the fiduciary-beneficiary to prove the will resulted from the testator’s free and voluntary act.
- “Independent advice and counsel” must be meaningful and directed to the dispositive choices; it is not satisfied when an attorney merely reduces the testator’s stated wishes to legal form without discussing the exclusion of natural heirs or the significance of favoring a nonrelative fiduciary.
- Appellate review gives substantial deference to a chancellor’s fact findings in will contests tried without a jury.
- A finding of undue influence supporting denial of probate may also support equitable relief cancelling property interests obtained through that influence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld rejection of a will that chiefly benefited the testatrix’s attorney-intimate partner, holding that the fiduciary relationship created a presumption of undue influence that was not rebutted because the drafting attorney provided only formal preparation rather than substantive independent counsel, and it affirmed related cancellation of property interests obtained under the same influence.


In re Will of Moses, 227 So. 2d 829 (Miss. 1969)