Background
Grace Howell’s 2007 will devised her remaining Lamar County property in equal one-third shares to her son, Ted Howell, and grandsons, Kevin and Trent Howell. After Grace died, the original will could not be found and was not immediately probated. In 2017, Ted represented that he was Grace’s sole heir and sold the property to Steve Lampton for $40,000. Lampton soon sold it to Anthony and Brandy Hunt for $65,600.
Kevin later submitted a copy of the will for probate and, with Trent and Grace’s estate, sued over the conveyances. The chancery court upheld the will, found the Hunts were bona fide purchasers for value without notice, and awarded monetary relief rather than setting aside their deed. It valued Kevin and Trent’s combined two-thirds interest at $43,733.34 but reduced that amount by a $17,500 debt Kevin allegedly owed under a separate deed of trust, leaving $26,233.34 in jointly and severally imposed damages.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling that Grace’s will was valid. Although the missing original created a presumption that Grace had revoked it, substantial evidence supported the chancellor’s finding that Kevin rebutted that presumption by clear and convincing evidence. The court also held that Lampton’s timely initial challenge gave sufficient notice of a will contest, allowing his later revocation argument to relate back despite being filed after the two-year limitations period. Lampton did not waive appellate review by failing to file a post-trial motion.
The court also affirmed the Hunts’ involuntary dismissal because substantial evidence supported the finding that they paid value and lacked notice of the will or competing ownership rights. But it reversed the $17,500 setoff because no defendant pleaded setoff as an affirmative defense or sought to amend the pleadings to add it. The court rendered judgment for Kevin and Trent for the full $43,733.34 representing their two-thirds share of the property’s $65,600 sale price, while otherwise affirming the judgments.
Key Takeaways
- A missing original will may create a presumption of revocation, but the proponent can overcome it with clear and convincing evidence that the testator did not intend to revoke the will.
- A later-developed will-contest theory may relate back when the timely original pleading placed the opposing party on notice that the will’s validity was contested.
- A chancery court may not impose an unpleaded setoff merely as an equitable remedy; setoff is an affirmative defense that must be timely pleaded and pursued.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary and procedural issues that arise when an original will disappears but a copy survives. It also confirms that bona fide-purchaser protection can preserve a later buyer’s title even when an earlier seller lacked authority to convey the entire property, leaving the rightful devisees to pursue monetary relief.
For litigators, the damages ruling is a reminder that a chancery court’s broad equitable authority does not excuse compliance with pleading rules. A claimed offset arising from a separate transaction must be pleaded, supported, and directed only against parties legally responsible for the alleged debt.