Autry Estate Decision: Mandatory Compliance With Statutory Will Formalities and Undue Influence Presumptions

Introduction

In In Re The Matter of the Estate of Autry, 2025 WL ___ (Miss. 2025), the Supreme Court of Mississippi addressed the validity of a decedent’s 2019 will and several warranty deeds executed under contentious circumstances. The dispute arose following the death of Effie Mae Autry, whose 2014 will provided for equal distribution among her surviving son and grandchildren, but whose 2019 instruments disinherited all grandchildren and reversed her prior testamentary scheme. The primary parties include Steve Autry (Effie’s only surviving son and sole beneficiary under the 2019 will) as appellant, and Marcus Autry and other grandchildren as appellees challenging that will and attendant deeds.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed the Pontotoc County Chancery Court’s judgment invalidating:

The 2019 Last Will and Testament of Effie Mae Autry, on grounds of failure to properly authenticate under Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-7 and lack of testamentary capacity/undue influence.
Eight warranty deeds executed contemporaneously, on grounds that they too were products of undue influence arising from Steve’s confidential relationship with his mother.

Because the ruling disposed of the 2019 instruments as invalid, the court remanded for further proceedings on probate of the 2014 will.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Christmas v. Christmas (In re Will of Beard), 334 So. 3d 1154 (Miss. 2022): Established the abuse-of-discretion standard for factual findings in will-contest cases.
Griffith v. Griffith (In re Est. of Griffith), 30 So. 3d 1190 (Miss. 2010): Confirmed de novo review on legal questions in will contests.
Better v. Hirsch, 76 So. 555 (Miss. 1917) & In re Est. of Giles, 228 So. 2d 594 (Miss. 1969): Both held that absent an express statutory mandate, the Court could apply “substantial compliance.” The Autry Court distinguished them because Mississippi Code § 91-7-7 expressly “shall” require witness addresses.
Foster v. Williams (In re Est. of Laughter), 23 So. 3d 1055 (Miss. 2009) & Cupit v. Pluskat (In re Est. of Reid), 825 So. 2d 1 (Miss. 2002): Defined “confidential relationship” and the presumption of undue influence.
Dabney v. Hataway (In re Est. of Dabney), 740 So. 2d 915 (Miss. 1999) & Lowrey v. In re Will of Smith, 543 So. 2d 1155 (Miss. 1989): Laid out the three-part test to rebut a presumption of undue influence by clear and convincing evidence.
Wright v. Roberts, 797 So. 2d 992 (Miss. 2001): Enumerated factors used to assess “good faith” in rebutting undue influence.
Bay Point Props., Inc. v. Miss. Transp. Comm’n, 201 So. 3d 1046 (Miss. 2016) & Murphy v. State, 178 So. 2d 692 (Miss. 1965): Reinforced that “shall” in a statute is mandatory.

2. Legal Reasoning

A. Due Execution Under § 91-7-7
The Court observed that Mississippi Code § 91-7-7 requires that witness affidavits “shall state the address” of each subscribing witness. Because the 2019 will’s affidavits omitted addresses, the will was not duly authenticated. Relying on the mandatory term “shall,” the Court refused to apply substantial compliance, distinguishing earlier cases where no express statutory formality existed.

B. Undue Influence & Confidential Relationship
Steve’s status as the decedent’s sole caregiver and power-of-attorney holder established a confidential relationship, thereby raising a presumption of undue influence. Under In re Est. of Reid and its progeny, Steve bore the burden of proving:

Good faith in procuring the instruments;
The grantor’s full knowledge and deliberation of consequences; and
The grantor’s independent consent and action.

Applying the Wright v. Roberts factors, the Court found Steve’s active role—initiating the will’s preparation, scheduling appointments, providing transportation, adding his name to bank accounts, moving Effie into his home—combined with evidence of Effie’s advanced dementia, fatally undercut any claim of independent consent. There was no clear and convincing proof he acted in good faith or that Mom understood and freely adopted her new testamentary scheme.

3. Impact

This decision underscores two critical principles:

Strict Statutory Compliance: Where a statute uses “shall” to impose procedural requirements, neither chancery courts nor this Court may ignore or excuse non-compliance in the name of substantial justice.
Protections Against Undue Influence: Descendants and fiduciaries in confidential relationships must be able to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the vulnerable testator possessed capacity, knowledge, and independence when altering testamentary dispositions.

Future practitioners and litigants must ensure full compliance with formal will-execution rules and remain vigilant to signs of diminished capacity or undue influence when advising elderly clients or beneficiaries.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Due Execution: The legal requirement that a will be signed and witnessed in compliance with statute so it can be admitted to probate.
Substantial Compliance: A doctrine allowing courts to uphold an imperfectly executed will when the legislature has not spelled out mandatory formalities.
Confidential Relationship: Exists when one person (e.g., a caregiver or close family member) dominates or influences another due to trust or dependency.
Undue Influence: Occurs when wrongful persuasion overcomes the testator’s free will, presuming invalidity of the resulting instrument.
Burden of Proof—Clear and Convincing Evidence: An intermediate standard requiring proof that is highly and substantially more probable to be true than not.
Standards of Review: “Abuse of discretion” for factual findings; “de novo” for legal conclusions.

Conclusion

In Re Autry establishes that attorneys, fiduciaries, and courts must adhere strictly to statutory formalities in will execution and remain alert to undue influence when dealing with incapacitated or dependent testators. The case reinforces the mandatory nature of legislative commands (“shall state the address”) and affirms that beneficiaries in confidential relationships face a heavy burden in defending challenged instruments. By affirming the chancery court and remanding for probate of the earlier will, the Supreme Court of Mississippi provides clear guidance on protection of testamentary intent and statutory precision.