Lisa Sojourner executed a will in 1999 (the “1999 will”) in which she devised her interest in her real property to her nieces and the residue of her estate to her mother, nieces, and grandniece. She executed a codicil in 2001 (the “first codicil”) in which she changed the alternate executor of her estate. Following a colon cancer diagnosis in 2012, Lisa’s sister, Barbara “Karen” Sojourner, became her primary caregiver. The next year, Lisa was diagnosed with liver cancer and executed a second codicil to her will (the “second codicil”) in which she devised her interest in all her real property to Karen and her nieces and the residue of her estate to Karen, her nieces, and grandniece. In 2014, Lisa moved in with Karen due to her declining health. That same year, Lisa executed a new will (the “2014 will”) in which she left the lion’s share of her estate to Karen and one niece. Lisa died in June 2015. In September 2015, Lisa and Karen’s sister, Susan Sojourner Campbell, filed a petition for letters of administration and determination of heirship. That same month, Karen petitioned to probate the 2014 will. The chancery court set the second will aside because there was clear and convincing evidence of a presumption of undue influence and actual evidence of undue influence by Karen in procuring the second will which Karen failed to overcome.

Six years later, Karen petitioned to probate the 1999 will and first and second codicils. Susan objected. Following a hearing, the chancellor found a presumption of undue influence, but that Karen had sufficiently rebutted the presumption and admitted the 1999 will and first and second codicils to probate. The chancellor appointed Karen as executor. Susan appealed, arguing that Karen did not overcome the presumption of undue influence and that Lisa was a vulnerable adult and subject to conservatorship. The appellate court affirmed the chancellor’s judgment. Lisa had “full knowledge and deliberation” in executing the 1999 will and first and second codicils and no one other than Lisa had direct involvement in the execution of those documents. Additionally, the fact that a person is subject to conservatorship does not restrict their right nor per se undermine their competency to execute a will.

This decision points out two concepts of estate planning law: the involvement of a third party who will benefit from another person’s will in the development of that will can lead to invalidating the will; and a person who is subject to a conservatorship may still have the capacity to execute a valid will.

The opinion is at: ESTATE OF SOJOURNER, 2025 WL 2961846 (MISS. APP. OCTOBER 21, 2025)