Estate of Griffith
Mississippi Supreme Court
30 So.3d 1190 (2010)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Garland Griffith (defendant) filed a petition to probate the purported will of his brother, Howard Griffith. The purported will, an attached certificate, and an affidavit of attesting witnesses were all signed by witnesses Eric M. Scott and Patrick O. Bell. The affidavit of attesting witnesses was also signed by a notary. Howard’s sons, Jimmy L. Griffith and Jerry H. Griffith (sons) (plaintiffs) filed a caveat against probate, arguing that the purported will had not been properly witnessed and was therefore not valid. During the probate proceedings, Scott and Bell filed new affidavits with the court stating that they had not realized they were witnessing a will but instead thought that they were witnessing a power of attorney. At a hearing, both Scott and Bell testified that they had signed the purported will as witnesses but that no one had informed them of what they were signing, that they did not realize they were signing a will, and that if they had been informed that the document was a will, they would have refused to sign it. Garland presented no evidence to rebut the testimony of Scott and Bell. The probate court rejected Garland’s petition to probate Howard’s purported will, and Garland appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lamar, J.)
Dissent (Pierce, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.