In re Bell

THE ESTATE OF CHARLES JAMES BELL, JR. APPELLANT v. THE ESTATE OF SARAH DELL MANN BELL, NITA JEAN SIMPSON HENRY, LIDELL MANN SIMPSON, JAMES ROBERT HENRY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE DELL MANN TRUST #1, AND DELL MANN PROPERTIES, LLC APPELLEES

No. 2021-CA-00789-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

February 21, 2023

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/14/2021.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY CHANCERY COURT HON. VICKI B. DANIELS, TRIAL JUDGE.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JAMES WILBOURN VISE G. MICHAEL MASSEY.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: MATTHEW THOMPSON CHAD KENNETH KING FLOYD M. MELTON III.

EN BANC.

GREENLEE, J.

¶1. The Estate of Charles James Bell Jr. appeals from the Montgomery County Chancery Court's judgment enforcing an antenuptial agreement between Charles and Sarah Dell Mann Bell. Charles's estate reiterates his claims that (1) the antenuptial agreement was a testamentary instrument that Sarah revoked when she executed a subsequent will; (2) Sarah's subsequent will was automatically renounced by operation of law because it did not include an adequate provision for him; (3) the agreement was substantively unconscionable; and (4) there was no consideration for the agreement. Finding no error, we affirm the chancery court's judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. Sarah and Charles were both sixty-two years old at the time of their May 9, 1987 wedding. Charles had two adult children from a previous relationship. Sarah had never been married. Although she did not have any children, she had a close relationship with her niece and nephew, Nita Henry and Lidell Simpson. They were the adopted children of Sarah's sister and brother-in-law, Bonnie and Samuel Simpson.

A. Antenuptial Agreement

¶3. Eight days before their wedding, Sarah and Charles signed an antenuptial agreement.^[1] According to the two-page, four-paragraph agreement, Sarah and Charles "desire[d] that all property now owned or hereafter acquired by each of them shall, for testamentary disposition, be free from any claim of the other that may arise by reason of their contemplated marriage."

The agreement also contained the following provision:

After solemnization of the marriage between the parties, each of them shall separately retain all rights in his or her own property, whether now owned or hereafter acquired, and each of them shall have the absolute and unrestricted right to dispose of such separate property, free from any claim that may be made by the other by reason of their marriage, and with the same effect as if no marriage had been consummated between them.

Charles and Sarah further agreed to waive "any rights as surviving spouse to elect to take against the other's will, whether heretofore or hereafter made." According to the agreement, that provision was meant to be "a waiver and release of the right of election in accordance with the requirements of Section 91-5-25 of the Mississippi Code of 1972,^[2] or of the same or similar law of any other jurisdiction which may be applicable."

¶4. Additionally, the agreement stated that "each of the parties owns, individually, real and personal property, [and] the nature and extent of the holdings of each party having been disclosed to the other[.]" The record indicates that Sarah owned approximately nine parcels of real property, brokerage accounts, and bank accounts when she signed the antenuptial agreement. The nine parcels of real property included approximately 187 acres of land. Charles had a schoolteacher's pension, retirement benefits, and a home on approximately fifteen or sixteen acres of land.^[3] After the marriage, Charles moved into the home that Sarah had inherited from her father.

B. Sarah's Last Will &Testament

¶5. On December 8, 2004, Sarah executed a will. Through it, she appointed Bonnie as the executrix.^[4] Sarah left Bonnie her home and the approximately fourteen acres of adjoining property. If Bonnie predeceased Sarah, then the property would go to Nita and Lidell, to "share and share alike, per st[ir]pes." Sarah's will also contained the following request:

I would make a request, but not an absolute directive of my sister or my nephew and niece, that should my husband, Charles James Bells, [sic] Jr., survive me, that he be allowed to live in the said residence as long as he desires and it is acceptable to my heirs.

¶6. Sarah left her residuary estate to an irrevocable trust named "The Dell Mann Trust #1." She appointed Nita's husband James Henry as the trustee, and she gave him absolute discretion to accumulate or distribute the income from the trust and invade it for the benefit of Bonnie, Samuel, or any of their natural or adopted descendants.

¶7. Sarah and Charles lived together in the marital home until June 2012 when Sarah was moved into an assisted living facility.^[5] Charles asserts that Nita, James, and "others" forced Sarah to move against her wishes. In contrast, Nita said Sarah was moved due to her declining health and Charles's mistreatment. In any event, Sarah signed a warranty deed on July 18, 2012. Through it, she transferred her one-half interest in the nine parcels of Carroll County property to Dell Mann Properties LLC.

¶8. Charles continued to live in the marital home until 2013. At that time, Charles's son William Bell moved Charles to a separate living facility due to Charles's declining health. In April 2015, Sarah and Charles executed a warranty deed and sold the marital home.^[6]

C. Petition to Probate Sarah's Estate

¶9. Sarah died in March 2017. Approximately two months later, James filed a petition to probate Sarah's will.^[7] William immediately entered his appearance as Charles's attorney. The chancery court entered an order appointing James as the executor of Sarah's estate. Charles subsequently moved to set aside the order appointing James as the executor. James filed a response in opposition and attached a copy of the 1987 antenuptial agreement.^[8]

¶10. Charles countered with a petition for a declaratory judgment challenging the antenuptial agreement's validity. According to Charles, the antenuptial agreement was unconscionable, the product of undue influence, and unenforceable as a testamentary instrument. Charles asserted that he and Sarah did not intend to enforce the agreement after they equally divided their marital expenses for the previous twenty-five years. Charles also claimed that the agreement did not include a waiver of his statutory rights set forth in Mississippi Code Annotated section 91-5-27 (Rev. 2021),^[9] so Sarah's 2004 will must be renounced as a matter of law because it did not include an adequate provision for him. Charles later filed a separate notice of his renunciation of Sarah's will.

¶11. In August 2017, Nita filed a response to Charles's petition for declaratory judgment.^[10]She also filed a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment. She argued that the antenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable. In his answer to Nita's counterclaim, Charles reiterated his claims that the antenuptial agreement was void and unenforceable.

D. Charles's Petition to Contest and Void Sarah's Will

¶12. In August 2018, Charles filed a petition to contest Sarah's will. Charles alleged that the will was the product of undue influence. He noted that the signature lines on pages one through ten of the will were blank. He reasoned that there was no indication that Sarah had reviewed the substance of those pages. Charles further noted that his and Sarah's last name was misspelled "Bells" in Article I of the will. According to Charles, Sarah would have corrected that mistake if she had actually reviewed the will because she had been a teacher for more than thirty years. Finally, Charles said that Sarah would have never directed that he could only live in the marital home if it was acceptable to her heirs.

¶13. Charles also claimed that the July 18, 2012 warranty deed was the product of James and Nita's undue influence. He said Sarah lacked the mental capacity to execute it. According to Charles, Sarah made several statements evidencing her dementia and lack of capacity to William after she had executed the deed. Charles also stated that Sarah was confused and saddened by her forced separation from him.^[11] Charles asked the chancery court to set aside Sarah's will, name him as her sole heir, and set aside the July 18, 2012 warranty deed.

¶14. Nita filed a response to Charles's petition to contest Sarah's will. She asserted several affirmative defenses and again argued that the antenuptial agreement was enforceable. She noted that no one had challenged the agreement until after Sarah's death. Sarah's estate filed a separate response to Charles's petition to contest the will. It essentially tracked Nita's response. Lidell and Dell Mann Properties LLC later filed their own responses.

E. Hearing on the Validity of the Antenuptial Agreement

¶15. In April 2019, the chancery court conducted a hearing on the validity of the antenuptial agreement.^[12] The parties did not present any witnesses during the hearing. Their attorneys reiterated the arguments that they raised in their earlier pleadings. The chancery court ultimately found that the 1987 antenuptial agreement was valid and a binding contract entered into by two rational mature adults. The chancery court declined to find that the agreement was procedurally or substantively unconscionable. The chancery court noted that the marriage had been consideration for the contract, and Sarah and Charles maintained the right to dispose of their property before or at their death or to leave their respective assets that they had spent a lifetime accumulating to their heirs or whomever they chose. The chancery court further stated that although there was some disparity in Sarah's and Charles's assets at the time,...