Christopher A. Roosa v. Rosemary D. Roosa ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2017-CA-01707-COA
THE ESTATE OF JOAN B. ROOSA, DECEASED: APPELLANTS
CHRISTOPHER A. ROOSA, JOHN D. ROOSA,
STUART ALLEN ROOSA, JR., ALL
INDIVIDUALLY; KATHLEEN ROOSA AND
DANIELLE ROOSA, BY AND THROUGH
THEIR NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN, JOHN D. ROOSA; SOPHIA
ROOSA, STUART ALLEN ROOSA, III AND
BARRON ROOSA, BY AND THROUGH THEIR
NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
STUART ALLEN ROOSA, JR.; CHRISTOPHER
A. ROOSA, AS EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE OF
THE JOAN B. ROOSA FAMILY TRUST; AND
VELDA ANN POWELL
v.
ROSEMARY D. ROOSA APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/17/2017
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CARTER O. BISE
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT,
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: JOHN G. McDONNELL
COURTNEY McDONNELL SNODGRASS
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: PAUL M. NEWTON JR.
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 04/23/2019
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE J. WILSON, P.J., GREENLEE AND McCARTY, JJ.
McCARTY, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. This case chiefly concerns whether submitting a codicil for probate triggers a
forfeiture provision in a decedent’s will. If the clause is triggered, the question becomes
whether good faith prevents application of the forfeiture. Finding no error in the chancery
court’s refusal to forfeit a daughter from inheriting under her mother’s will, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. This appeal involves litigation that has been ongoing since Joan Roosa died in
October 2007. Joan had an ample estate partly from businesses operated by her and her
husband, Colonel Stuart Roosa, who had flown the command module Kitty Hawk to the
moon on the Apollo 14 mission. Joan executed a will in 2002 and a codicil to it in 2004; a
second codicil was executed in 2007. At the time of her death, Joan had four
children—Christopher, Rosemary, Stuart, and John—and a number of grandchildren. Under
the terms of the will and the first codicil, all of the children and grandchildren were to receive
some proceeds under the will. In contrast, under the second codicil, the bulk of the estate
was left to the benefit of Rosemary alone.
¶3. Christopher, the executor of Joan’s estate, submitted Joan’s will and the first codicil
for probate in the Harrison County Chancery Court, First Judicial District. Shortly after,
Rosemary submitted the will, the first codicil, and the second codicil for probate.
Christopher and Joan’s other children, including Joan’s grandchildren, contested the validity
of the second codicil, claiming among other things that Rosemary had undue influence over
Joan.
¶4. A jury was empaneled to determine the validity of the second codicil. After trial, the
jury returned a general verdict for Christopher and the other contestants, rejecting the second
codicil. The chancery court subsequently entered an order stating the second codicil was
2
refused for probate.
¶5. Joan’s will had a forfeiture provision which would deprive any beneficiary from
taking under the will if they contested the will. Christopher sought to have this forfeiture
provision enforced against Rosemary since she filed the second codicil for probate, claiming
that she interfered with Joan’s wishes. Initially, the chancery court found that Rosemary’s
actions in probating the second codicil were in good faith, which meant that the forfeiture
provision did not prevent her from inheriting her share of Joan’s estate. The chancery court
reiterated this factual and legal finding in several orders during the years of contention
between the parties. After intervening law from the Mississippi Supreme Court, the chancery
court held that the forfeiture provision was unenforceable because it lacked a good faith and
probable cause exception. After extended motion practice from Christopher, the chancery
court deleted the language from prior orders finding that Rosemary had acted in good faith.
¶6. Christopher now appeals, asserting the chancery court erred in: (1) finding that the
forfeiture provision was not enforceable against Rosemary; (2) refusing to give the jury
interrogatories; (3) allowing Rosemary to use Joan’s car while waiting to settle Joan’s estate;
and (4) allowing Rosemary’s former attorneys to intervene.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶7. “When reviewing a chancellor’s legal findings, particularly involving the
interpretation or construction of a will, this Court will apply a de novo standard of review.”
In re Last Will & Testament of Carney, 758 So. 2d 1017, 1019 (¶8) (Miss. 2000). With
respect to other issues in a will contest, “[t]ypically this Court will not disturb a chancellor’s
3
findings of fact unless the chancellor was manifestly wrong and not supported by substantial,
credible evidence.” In re Estate of Wright, 829 So. 2d 1274, 1276 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App.
2002).
I. The forfeiture provision will not be enforced against Rosemary.
¶8. The chancery court found that Rosemary should not forfeit her share of her mother’s
estate due to attempting to probate the second codicil. Christopher argues that the forfeiture
provision should be enforced against Rosemary because she did not act in good faith when
submitting the second codicil for probate. In response, Rosemary argues that submitting a
codicil for probate is not contesting the will, so the forfeiture provision is not triggered at all.
Alternatively, Rosemary contends that the forfeiture provision is not applicable since she
submitted the second codicil in good faith.
¶9. An in terrorem clause in a will acts to frighten a beneficiary that any benefit they
might receive will be forfeited if they contest or otherwise dispute the validity of the will.
See Taylor v. Rapp, 124 S.E.2d 271, 272 (Ga. 1962). Joan’s will contained just such a
forfeiture provision. It read in relevant part:
If any beneficiary hereunder shall contest the probate or validity of this
Will or any provision thereof, or shall institute or join in (except as a party
defendant) any proceeding to contest the validity of this Will or to prevent any
provision thereof from being carried out in accordance with its terms
(regardless of whether or not such proceedings are instituted in good faith and
with probable cause), than all benefits provided for such beneficiary are
revoked and such benefits shall pass to the residuary beneficiaries of this Will
(other than such beneficiary) in the proportion that the share of each such
residuary beneficiary bears to the aggregate of the effective shares of the
residuary.
¶10. The forfeiture clause explicitly states that “regardless” of whether a beneficiary starts
4
proceedings “in good faith and with probable cause” that they will be forfeited from
benefitting under the estate. During the life of the litigation, the Mississippi Supreme Court
declared forfeiture provisions like this unenforceable as a matter of law. See Parker v.
Benoist, 160 So. 3d 198, 205 (¶15) (Miss. 2015). The Court held that “[a] strict
interpretation of no-contest provisions in wills would hamper courts’ goal of determining
what is, once and for all, the will of the testator,” and that “[a] bona fide inquiry into the
validity of the will should not be defeated by language contained in the will itself.” Id. at
206. As a result, if a will contained a forfeiture provision, it also had to have a requirement
that it would only be enforced if it had a good faith exception. Id.
¶11. Rosemary’s will contained the exact same forfeiture provision that the Supreme Court
held unenforceable in Parker. Id. at 203 (¶9). As a result, the chancery court found that “as
a matter of law the [forfeiture] clause in this case is unenforceable because it fails to contain
a good faith exception.” This does not delete the forfeiture provision but instead reforms it
to include an exception for good faith actions by beneficiaries. Id. at 205-06 (¶¶12-15).
¶12. The first question we must resolve is whether the forfeiture clause even applies to
Rosemary. Her argument on appeal is that it cannot be applied since she did not contest the
will per se but instead only submitted the second codicil for probate. However, the plain
language of Joan’s will captures more conduct than simply contesting the will. The forfeiture
clause applies when any beneficiary tries to “prevent any provision [of the will] from being
carried out in accordance with its terms . . . .” The second codicil Rosemary submitted to
probate dramatically changed the amounts her siblings would take under their mother’s will
5
(among other significant changes). Under the express language of the forfeiture provision
in Joan’s will and the specific nature of the second codicil, we find that the forfeiture
provision is applicable to Rosemary.
¶13. This does not end the inquiry, as we must determine whether Rosemary acted in good
faith in submitting the second codicil for probate. In Parker, our Supreme Court noted that
the evidence was sufficient for it to determine good faith and probable cause, rather than
remand for the chancery court to conduct an inquiry. Id. at 206-07 (¶16). Likewise, we will
determine if sufficient evidence supports Rosemary’s claim that she submitted the second
codicil in good faith and based on probable cause. In the context of a will contest,
“[p]robable cause exists when, at the time of instituting the proceeding, there was evidence
that would lead a reasonable person, properly informed and advised, to conclude that there
was a substantial likelihood that the challenge would be successful.” Id. at 206 (¶15)
(quoting Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers § 8.5 cmt. c.
(2003)). “The determination of good faith and probable cause should be inferred from the
totality of the circumstances.” Id.
¶14. Even though the chancery court amended its orders finding that Rosemary acted in
good faith, we can affirm a chancery court’s judgment for different reasons. See Sanderson
Farms Inc. v. Gatlin, 848 So. 2d 828, 843 (¶44) (Miss. 2003). Here, we find sufficient
evidence existed that Rosemary acted in good faith when submitting the second codicil.
Knox White, an attorney and Joan’s brother-in-law, assisted Joan with the second codicil.
Knox died prior to trial, but his subscribing-witness affidavit was admitted into evidence
6
during trial. In the affidavit, Knox stated that he drafted the codicil based upon Joan’s
precise instructions. Knox said he “personally received Joan’s instructions or directions for
the preparation of the second codicil.” He reviewed the codicil and then presented it to Joan.
Joan then signed the second codicil in front of Knox and Shirley Carty, the other subscribing
witness.
¶15. Knox’s wife, Patti, was also present. Although Rosemary and other family members
were present before Joan signed the second codicil, Rosemary was not present when Joan
actually signed it or when Joan discussed its contents with Knox. Patti testified that she
heard Joan tell Knox what she wanted the second codicil to include. Patti and Knox’s
daughter, Janet, was also present. Janet testified that she took notes during Knox and Joan’s
discussion about the second codicil. Janet typed the document, and then Knox and Joan
reviewed it. When Knox left the room after Joan signed the second codicil, he saw Rosemary
and told her, “This is your mama’s codicil. Put it in a safe place.”
¶16. Ralph Yelverton, an attorney who drafted Joan’s prior wills and the first codicil,
testified that he was aware of the second codicil. Yelverton testified that he submitted Joan’s
will and the first codicil for probate but not the second codicil because it lacked the
signatures of two subscribing witnesses. He told Rosemary to obtain the affidavits from
Knox and Carty in order to submit the second codicil for probate. Yelverton also “informed
the chancellor at the time that I opened the estate that there may be another codicil out there.”
So the existence of the second codicil was not a secret, and Rosemary obtained the required
7
affidavits in order to submit the second codicil for probate.1
¶17. Even though the jury found the second codicil invalid, this decision alone does not
mean that it was submitted in bad faith or without probable cause. Indeed, the jury could not
ever reach this question, because its sole duty under the law was to determine “whether or
not the writing propounded be the will of the alleged testator.” See Miss. Code Ann.
§ 91-7-19 (Rev. 2018); In re Estate of Taylor, 755 So. 2d 1284, 1288 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App.
2000) (“In a will contest, and accordingly, in an appeal as to such, there is only one main
issue that is to be discussed and decided: devisavit vel non [or] will or no will. This is the
issue of whether or not the will written by the testator is a valid will.”)
¶18. In light of the above, we find that there was sufficient evidence to “lead a reasonable
person, properly informed and advised, to conclude that there was a substantial likelihood
that the challenge would be successful.” Parker, 160 So. 3d at 209 (¶24). Therefore, we
affirm that Rosemary will not forfeit her share of her mother’s estate.
II. Remand is not required.
¶19. As explained above, in the unique occasions when a jury is brought into the chancery
court, its duty under the law is to ascertain “whether or not the writing propounded be the
will of the alleged testator.” See § 91-7-19. Christopher argues that if we do not enforce the
forfeiture of Rosemary’s inheritance, then we should remand for a jury to determine whether
she exhibited good faith in probating the second codicil. We decline. This issue is not
1
Indeed, during oral argument, counsel for Rosemary theorized that she was actually
required to submit the second codicil for probate, since purposefully altering, destroying, or
concealing a will or codicil after notification of the testator’s death is a crime. Miss. Code
Ann. § 97-9-77 (Rev. 2014).
8
within the jury’s province under the statute.
¶20. Christopher also contends that the chancery court erred in refusing to submit
interrogatories to the jury that deliberated on the validity of the second codicil. Christopher
states that these interrogatories “would have enabled the jury to make specific findings of
fact that were pertinent to a will contest,” especially the forfeiture provision. As set out
above, this is not the proper role of the jury in will contests. Joan had serious health
problems during the last year of her life, and her competency to sign the second codicil was
a core focus of the trial, which is proper under state law. The jury was instructed on the
issues of testamentary capacity and undue influence, as it should have been. The jury’s only
role was to determine whether the codicil was valid and not whether Rosemary exhibited
good faith in submitting it. As we have already determined, the forfeiture provision was
enforceable, but Rosemary acted in good faith when submitting the second codicil to probate.
Accordingly, we find this issue is without merit.
III. The chancery court properly applied equity to the Jaguar.
¶21. The chancery court allowed Rosemary to continue driving a Jaguar that belonged to
her mother. Christopher contends that the chancery court failed to honor Joan’s express
intent to bequeath all of her cars to her four children equally. Early in the litigation, the
chancery court ruled that the car was an asset of Joan’s estate. The chancery court allowed
Rosemary to retain possession of the car while the case was pending, provided that when
Joan’s estate was settled, the value of the car at the date of distribution of Joan’s estate would
9
be deducted from Rosemary’s share.2 In its order closing Joan’s estate, the chancery court
awarded Rosemary the car but stated that if Christopher was successful on appeal, then
Rosemary would have to surrender the car immediately.
¶22. “The expressed intent of the testator is the guiding star rather than ‘what he wished’
or may have wished.” Stovall v. Stovall, 360 So. 2d 679, 681 (Miss. 1978). Joan determined
the various cars in her possession at the time of her death were to be divided “equally”
among her children. However, by its very nature this expressed intent would have likely
required the sale of the cars and the proceeds to be divided. The powers of the chancery
court “are as broad as equity and justice require.” Hall v. Wallace, 443 So. 2d 834, 842
(Miss. 1983). The chancery court fashioned equitable relief, and under the circumstances,
it was not error to allow Rosemary to keep the car in exchange for a reduction in her share
of her mother’s estate.
IV. Intervention was proper.
¶23. In his final issue, Christopher argues that the chancery court erred in granting a motion
to intervene by Rosemary’s first attorneys. Rosemary’s first attorneys, Donald Dornan and
Edward Donovan (collectively Dornan), ceased representing her in 2012. To recover
attorney’s fees, Dornan accepted an assignment by Rosemary of part of her distribution from
Joan’s estate equaling the amount of Dornan’s legal fees and expenses. Dornan then filed
a motion to intervene under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and (b). After a
hearing, the chancery court allowed Dornan to intervene under Rule 24(a), intervention of
2
The chancery court noted that Rosemary should be credited for the $5,000 she had
already paid to Joan for the car.
10
right.
¶24. We review the chancery court’s decision to allow a Rule 24(a) intervention de novo.
Madison HMA Inc. v. St. Dominic-Jackson Mem. Hosp., 35 So. 3d 1209, 1215 (¶19) (Miss.
2010). Rule 24(a)(2) provides that a party may be permitted to intervene as of right:
(2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction
which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of
the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that
interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing
parties.
¶25. To succeed, Dornan must show that: (1) he made a “timely application,” (2) he had
“an interest in the subject matter of the action,” (3) he was “so situated that disposition of the
action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect his interest,” and (4)
“his interest [was] not already . . . adequately represented by existing parties.” Guar. Nat’l
Ins. Co. v. Pittman, 501 So. 2d 377, 381 (Miss. 1987).
¶26. In Madison HMA, the Supreme Court noted that Mississippi has adopted a four-part
test for determining whether a motion to intervene was timely, but did not specifically apply
the test since the timeliness of the motion to intervene was “not in serious dispute.” 35 So.
3d at 1217 (¶26); see Guar. Nat’l Ins. Co., 501 So. 2d at 381-82. Such is the case here—the
timeliness is not in serious dispute. Once Dornan and Rosemary found it necessary to end
their attorney-client relationship, Dornan filed his motion to withdraw as Rosemary’s
attorney and his motion to intervene at the same time.
¶27. Further, Dornan demonstrated he had more than a mere economic interest in the
subject matter. Perry County v. Ferguson, 618 So. 2d 1270, 1272 (Miss. 1993) (“Economic
11
interest alone is insufficient; a legally protected interest is required for intervention.”).
Rosemary assigned part of her distribution from Joan’s estate to Dornan thereby giving
Dornan an interest in the subject of the action.
¶28. Dornan has also shown that disposition of the action could impede the ability to
protect his interest. If Rosemary was excluded from inheriting from Joan, then the portion
she assigned to Dornan would no longer be available as a means to recover his attorney’s
fees.
¶29. Finally, Dornan has demonstrated that his interest was not adequately represented by
Rosemary’s new attorney. There was testimony during the motion hearing that although
Rosemary did not object to Dornan’s motion to intervene, she reserved the right to contest
the amount of attorney’s fees owed to Dornan.
¶30. Our Supreme Court has reiterated that the requirements of Rule 24(a)(2) “are not
bright lines, but ranges—not all ‘interests’ are of equal rank. . . .” Madison HMA Inc., 35 So.
3d at 1215 (¶19). It was not error to grant the attorneys’ request to intervene.
¶31. AFFIRMED.
CARLTON, P.J., GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE
AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR. BARNES, C.J., AND J. WILSON, P.J., CONCUR
IN PART AND IN THE RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
TINDELL, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
12