Richard and Shirley Flor had four children – Gary, Zoa, Geraldine, and Valerie. Shirley and Richard executed identical Wills, leaving all their property to their spouse, then to the four children in equal shares.

            Richard died first; Shirley inherited all. Before Shirley died she executed a deed conveying several lots to Gary.

            A few years later Gary signed an “Article of Agreement” and delivered it to Zoa. The AOA, notarized but not recorded, stated that upon Gary’s death two of the lots would be “shared” with Zoa, Valerie, and Geraldine.

            Gary died intestate and Zoa opened estate proceedings. Zoa’s petition alleged that Gary was contractually obligated to transfer two lots to his sisters, pursuant to the AOA. Gary’s three sons opposed it.

            The trial court allowed Zoa to testify that Gary’s sons always knew Gary’s true intentions, which was to honor their parents and protect Zoa and her sisters. Despite such testimony, the court disregarded the AOA, finding that it is fatally ambiguous and could serve neither as a Deed since it did not convey a present interest in land, nor a contract that required additional actions to conclude it.

            Zoa appealed.

            The Court of Appeals determined that Gary’s AOA “communicated a dominant intention” that his sisters would receive the lots at Gary’s death. As such, it is a valid conveyance of a future interest much like a Deed, as opposed to a failed testamentary gift.

            Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment.

            Gary appealed.

            The Supreme Court looked to find legal consideration for Gary’s AOA. But could not find it, and instead determined that the AOA is a “unilateral statement.”

            Strike one.

            Next, the Supremes evaluated the possibility that the AOA served as a Deed. However, writings that are ineffective until the death of the grantor are not Deeds but rather are testamentary, and subject to the statute of Wills.

            Strike two.

            Deeds contain words of conveyance such as grant, bargain, sell, and convey. Deeds are acknowledged or notarized, recorded, and delivered to the grantee. Deed requirements are strict and unforgiving. Documents that do not contain appropriate conveyance language are not valid Deeds. The AOA and facts surrounding it contain none of these elements, and passed no real estate interest at the time of execution.

            Strike three.

            Consequently, the AOA fails as a Deed or Will. The Judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The decision of the trial court is affirmed. Zoa and her sisters lose; Gary’s sons win.

            See In the Matter of the Estate of Gary Wayne Johnson; Mississippi Supreme Court; Case 2023-CT-00823-SCT; October 2, 2025: https://law.justia.com/cases/mississippi/supreme-court/2025/2023-ct-00823-sct-0.html.

            Conclusion: Both Deed and Will requirements are strict, technical, and unforgiving. Doubtless Gary was attempting to do the right thing and honor the wishes of his parents, never envisioning that his AOA would be challenged.

            However, challenges asserted by succeeding generations are common. And often the results of the challenge do not track the intent of the grantor or testator.

 Stuart A. Lautin, Esq.*

* Board Certified, Commercial and Residential Real Estate Law, Texas Board of Legal Specialization

Licensed in the States of Texas and New York