Ralph Bardin Redditt v. Richard P. Redditt
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-CA-00839-COA
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF VIVIAN
BARDIN REDDITT, DECEASED: RALPH BARDIN REDDITT
APPELLANT
v.
HELEN GRAY REDDITT, EXECUTRIX OF THE LAST WILL AND
TESTAMENT OF WILLIAM JOSEPH REDDITT, DECEASED, RICHARD P.
REDDITT AND VIVIAN REDDITT HEMPHILL
APPELLEES
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
04/19/2001
HON. WILLIAM G. WILLARD JR.
LEFLORE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
JAMES W. BURGOON JR.
F. EWIN HENSON III
CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES
JUDGMENT FOR APPELLEES' RECONSTRUCTION OF
MOTHER'S WILL.
AFFIRMED - 06/25/2002
7/16/2002
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., THOMAS, AND IRVING, JJ.
THOMAS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. This is a battle of one sibling versus the other three siblings regarding interpretation of their mother's will.
Ralph Bardin Redditt argues on appeal that, because his mother conveyed lands to a family corporation, the
land did not pass under a provision of the will relating to real property, but passed under the residuary
clause. Ralph believes that his mother's conveyance of the land for stock in the corporation was an
ademption, that is, that the devise of said land was extinguished, making the bequest of personalty under the
residuary clause controlling. The chancellor ruled otherwise. Ralph appeals asserting the following issues:
I. WHETHER THE WILLS OF MR. AND MRS. REDDITT EXPRESS THE INTENT
THAT RALPH BARDIN REDDITT RECEIVE 187 ACRES OF LAND OR SHARES OF
STOCK LESS THAN THE APPELLEES, JOE, RICK, AND SIS?
II. WHETHER, UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WILLS ADOPTED BY THE
CHANCELLOR, RALPH BARDIN REDDITT RECEIVING 374 ACRES OR SHARES
OF STOCK LESS THAN THE OTHER THREE SIBLINGS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE INTENT OF THE PARENT'S WILLS?
III. WHETHER THE CONVEYANCE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF A SPECIFIC
DEVISE OF 187 ACRES IN A WILL CONSTITUTES AN ADEMPTION OF THAT
DEVISE?
IV. WHETHER THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND BY THE TESTATRIX DURING HER
LIFETIME TO A CORPORATION IN EXCHANGE FOR SHARES OF STOCK
CONSTITUTES AN ADEMPTION OF THE DEVISES OF LAND SO CONVEYED?
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2. The facts in this case are not in dispute. Ralph and Vivian Redditt resided in Carroll County where they
accumulated and farmed land held in their names. The Redditts had four children, Ralph Bardin Redditt
(Bardin), William Joseph Redditt (Joe), Richard P. Redditt (Rick), and Vivian Redditt Hemphill (Sis). On
June 19, 1984, Ralph and Vivian executed wills. Ralph passed away in 1985, and his will was admitted to
probate. His estate was closed shortly thereafter. Vivian passed away in December of 1998, and her will
was probated in the Chancery Court of Leflore County, where she resided at the time of her death. Ralph's
will provided, in part, as follows:
C. Upon the death of my wife if she survives me, or upon receipt of the Family Trust fund by the
Trustees if she does not survive me, the Family Trust as then constituted shall be held, administered
and disposed of as follows:
(1) My land shall be distributed as follows:
(a) 187 acres of land to each of my three children, Richard P. Redditt, Vivian Redditt Hemphill, and
William Joseph Redditt. I am making this provision in order to equalize the circumstances of my three
children with that of my son Ralph Bardin Redditt, who has previously inherited approximately 187
acres of land from Pearl Bardin.
(b) If any of my four children have acquired, by gifts, devise, or inheritance, all or part of the land
located in Sunflower County, Mississippi, and owned by my nephew Billy McEachern, or the land
located in Leflore County, Mississippi, known as the "Nye Place" and owned by my niece Carrie Nye
Cavett, then the remainder of my land shall be distributed in such a manner that the total acreage of
land received by each of my children from my nephew Billy McEachern, my niece Carrie Nye Cavett,
my mother-in-law Pearl Bardin, and me shall be as nearly equal as possible.
(c) If none of my children have acquired, by gift, devise, or inheritance, any of the land mentioned in
paragraph (b) above, then the remainder of my land shall be distributed in equal shares to my children.
(2) All the rest, residue, and remainder of the trust property shall be distributed in equal shares to my
children.
Vivian's will provides as follows:All that remains of my said residuary estate at the death of my husband, or
should he not survive me, my entire estate (except that property previously disposed of under Item III of
this will) I give, devise, and bequeath as follows:
(1) Approximately 187 acres of land owned by me and located in Sunflower County, Mississippi, to
my son, Ralph Bardin Redditt, or if he is then deceased to his then living issue per stripes, subject to
paragraph (4) below.
(2) 187 acres of my remaining land to each of my three children, Richard P. Redditt, Vivian Redditt
Hemphill, and William Joseph Redditt. If any of said children shall then be deceased, his share shall
pass to his then living issue per stripes, subject to paragraph (4) below.
(3) All of the rest, residue, and remainder of said residuary estate in equal shares to such of my
children as shall then be living and to the living issue per stripes of such of my children as shall be dead
with issue then living - such issue representing its parent, subject to paragraph (4) below.
At the time of Ralph's death, he owned 596 acres of land which passed into a family trust under his
will. The co-trustees later conveyed this land to Redditt Valley Farms, Inc., in exchange for 596
shares of stock.
¶3. Prior to her death, Vivian owned 1003 acres of land in Carroll County, which she conveyed to Redditt
Valley Farms, Inc. in 1992 in exchange for 1003 shares of stock. Before the execution of the wills, Vivian
and Bardin Redditt each inherited 187 acres of land in Sunflower County from Vivian's mother, Pearl
Bardin. On April 11, 1990, Vivian executed a general power of attorney in favor of two of her sons, Bardin
and Joe, allowing them to transact business on her behalf. Due to financial problems, Bardin and Vivian's
interests in the land in Sunflower County were deeded to the Farm Credit Bank of Texas in satisfaction and
cancellation of the indebtedness owed on a loan taken out in 1982. This deed was signed by Bardin and by
Bardin and Joe as Vivian's attorneys-in- fact. Between 1992 and 1997, Bardin and Joe, acting as
attorneys-in-fact for Vivian, made gifts of stock in Redditt Valley Farms, Inc., equally to the four children.
The gifts were executed at twenty shares per child per year for a total of 120 shares each. Vivian was not
involved in this. It was Bardin's opinion that she would not have understood.
¶4. After Vivian's death, Bardin petitioned the court to hold that since the family trust and Vivian had
conveyed away their lands to Redditt Valley Farms, Inc., none of the land passed under the provisions of
either will pertaining to real property, but instead all of it passed under the residuary clauses in which each
child was to share equally. The court held that even though the land mentioned in the wills was no longer
owned by them but had been converted to shares of stock, both testators intended that the shares of stock
be distributed as if they were acres of land. The final judgment provided for the disposition of the shares of
stock with 8.75 shares of the Redditt Family Trust to Bardin, and 195.75 shares each to Rick, Joe, and Sis.
The shares gifted during the lifetime of Vivian remained as gifted. The remaining shares of stock held by the
estate of Vivian Redditt were divided equally among Rick, Joe and Sis, with each of them receiving 174 1/3
shares.
ANALYSIS
I. WHETHER THE WILLS OF MR. AND MRS. REDDITT EXPRESS THE INTENT
THAT RALPH BARDIN REDDITT RECEIVE 187 ACRES OF LAND OR SHARES OF
STOCK LESS THAN THE APPELLEES, JOE, RICK, AND SIS?
II. WHETHER, UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WILLS ADOPTED BY THE
CHANCELLOR, RALPH BARDIN REDDITT RECEIVING 374 ACRES OR SHARES
OF STOCK LESS THAN THE OTHER THREE SIBLINGS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE INTENT OF THE PARENT'S WILLS?
¶5. We will examine the first two issues together. Bardin Redditt argues that it was his parents' intent that
their children should take equally from them under their wills. Bardin recognizes that he was to receive 187
acres less than his siblings under his father's will due to a specific devise of 187 acres of land he received
from his grandmother, Pearl Bardin. He argues, however, that the court erred in construing Vivian's will and
reducing his shares of stock. Bardin did not receive the 187 acres of land from his mother because it had
been deeded away in order to satisfy debts incurred on the land through Bardin's farming of it.
¶6. Contrary to Bardin's assertions, the testator's intent must be determined at the time of the will's
execution. In re Granberry's Estate, 310 So. 2d 708, 713 (Miss. 1975). Also, a court may not amend or
reform a will, nor may it add to or take from a will in order to make a new will for the testatrix. Hemphill v.
Robinson, 355 So. 2d 302, 306 (Miss. 1978). Vivian Redditt's will was executed in 1984. Bardin and
Vivian inherited the land in Sunflower County in the 1960s, from Vivian's mother and Bardin's grandmother.
None of the other Redditt children took any land at this time. Bardin farmed the entire 374 acres which
included his 187 acres and the 187 acres belonging to Vivian. He mortgaged it twice, the last time being in
1982 to the Federal Land Bank. The loan proceeds were paid to Bardin, the Federal Land Bank
Association of Indianola, and Production Credit. When Vivian's will was made, she was aware that Bardin
had inherited an undivided one-half interest in 374 acres and that the entire property was mortgaged. In her
will, she specifically left Bardin the other half interest in the 374 acres and left the other children with 187
acres of land each with the rest of her estate to be divided equally among them.
¶7. In order to adopt the construction that Bardin proposes, circumstances occurring after the execution of
the will would have to be considered controlling. If the land had not been conveyed into the family
corporation, there would be no basis for argument. Even though the land was conveyed into the
corporation, the wills were not modified. Bardin himself admitted that the land was conveyed into the family
corporation in order to minimize estate taxes. It was conveyed at a rate of one acre for one share of stock
in the corporation. We find that the chancellor did not err in determining the distribution of the assets based
on the Redditts' intent at the time their wills were executed.
III. WHETHER THE CONVEYANCE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF A SPECIFIC
DEVISE OF 187 ACRES IN A WILL CONSTITUTES AN ADEMPTION OF THAT
DEVISE?
IV. WHETHER THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND BY THE TESTATRIX DURING HER
LIFETIME TO A CORPORATION IN EXCHANGE FOR SHARES OF STOCK
CONSTITUTES AN ADEMPTION OF THE DEVISES OF LAND SO CONVEYED?
¶8. We will examine these issues together, as they both involve the ademption of devises of land. The
question of whether Vivian intended that the specific devises of land to her children be adeemed required
findings of fact by the chancellor. These findings are entitled to substantial deference and require a finding of
manifest error or clear error in order to be reversed. In re Estate of Grubbs, 753 So. 2d 1043, 1046 (¶7)
(Miss. 2000).
¶9. Ademption "occurs when a testator in his lifetime disposes of a piece of property he has specifically
devised or bequeathed in his will. The effect is that the gift fails since the testator at his death did not own
the property." Robert A. Weems, Wills and Administration of Estates in Mississippi §§ 9-20, at 305
(2d ed. 1995). Joe, Rick, and Sis Redditt concede that there was a partial ademption of the specific
devises of 187 acres each to them under Vivian's will. This ademption occurs because of the gifts of stock
given to each of the children which began in 1992 and continued until 1997. These gifts were made by
Bardin and Joe, acting under power of attorney. Each child, including Bardin, received 20 shares per year
for a total of 120 shares each. This reduced the shares in Vivian's estate from 1003 to 523. This left 174
and 1/3 each for Joe, Rick, and Sis rather than the 187 specified in the will. Similarly, Vivian no longer
owned the 187 acres that was deeded to the Federal Land Bank. Therefore, this devise was adeemed and
could not be conveyed.
¶10. As Bardin correctly asserts, the Mississippi Supreme Court recognizes the doctrine of ademption.
Welch v. Welch, 147 Miss. 728, 113 So. 197 (1927). In Welch, the court held that a bequest of a
Packard car to the testator's wife was adeemed when the testator conveyed away the Packard and
purchased a Lincoln which he owned at his death. Welch, 147 Miss. at 729, 113 So. at 199. Joe, Rick,
and Sis point this Court to a case reaching a somewhat different result due to the wording in a will. In
Milton v. Milton, 193 Miss. 563, 10 So. 2d 175 (1942), the court held that a testator that devised to his
wife the house he occupied as his "home place," although he later sold that house and purchased another
prior to his death, that the devise applied and the wife took the current house. Milton, 193 Miss. at 565, 10
So. 2d at 177.
¶11. Bardin urges that this Court adopt a very strict view of ademption, similar to the court in Welch.
Bardin argues that any change in the form of the property extinguishes the specific bequest. He argues,
therefore, that when the land was conveyed into the family corporation in 1992, all specific devises in
Vivian's will were adeemed. The trial court disagreed with this assertion and ordered that the shares of
stock pass under the specific devise in the will.
¶12. Joe, Rick, and Sis point this Court to one of the great maxims of equity. "In construing the will,
substance rather than form must be regarded, and the instrument should receive most favorable construction
to accomplish the purpose intended by the testator." New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary v. Lacy,
219 So. 2d 665, 672 (Miss. 1969). Although unable to find any Mississippi cases directly on point, Joe,
Rick, and Sis point this Court to several cases from other jurisdictions which treat the change of the acres
of land to shares of stock as a matter of form since the substance of the family farm remained the same.
¶13. In re Creed's Estate, 255 Cal. App. 2d 80 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967), involved a testator that left real
estate known as the "Bell Property" to his daughter in trust for his grandchildren. Before his death, the
testator incorporated for tax purposes, and the "Bell Property" was conveyed to the corporation. Id. at 82.
The testator made inter vivos gifts of stock in the corporation for the benefit of the grandchildren. The
California Court of Appeals held that there was no intent to adeem the specific devise of real estate and that
transferring the land into the corporation did not require a finding that the land had been adeemed. Id. at 84.
¶14. Similar results have been reached by the courts of Indiana and Pennsylvania. In Pepka v. Branch, 294
N.E. 2d 141 (Ind. Ct. App. 1973), the Indiana Court of Appeals held that a business that became
incorporated was only a change of form made for tax purposes and that the change did not cause an
ademption which would cause the business to pass under the residuary clause of the will. Id. at 148. The
Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a change from a partnership to a corporation was a change of form
that did not change the substance of a business and was therefore not adeemed in In Re Gerlach's Estate,
72 A. 2d 271, 273 (Pa. 1950).
¶15. In the case at hand, Vivian Redditt did not divest herself of the title to the real property at issue. This
was done through the power of attorney granted to her sons, Bardin and Joe. Bardin testified that Vivian
would not have understood the gifts of shares at the time the program was implemented. She could not,
therefore, have intended to adeem the devises of land to Joe, Rick, and Sis. Bardin testified at trial that the
family corporation was formed for the purpose of minimizing estate taxes after Vivian's death. No evidence
was presented that Vivian participated in the forming of the corporation or in conveying the land to the
corporation. Even after the formation of the corporation, Bardin testified that the land continued to be
farmed by him just as it had been previously and that all of the rent went to Vivian, even though she was
being divested of ownership by gifts of the shares of stock.
¶16. Bardin asserts that he received 374 acres less than his siblings. However, he had legal title to 187 of
those acres from the early 1960s until 1991 when it was deeded to the Federal Land Bank in order to
satisfy a debt against it which was established before Ralph and Vivian executed their wills. In deeding
away his interest, Bardin received valuable consideration. Similarly, Bardin had engaged in farming the 187
acres owned by Vivian, which was deeded to the Federal Land Bank together with the property he had
owned. Although he never had legal title to the land, he did enjoy the use of the property and benefitted
when it was used to satisfy the debt against it.
¶17. We find that the chancellor correctly held that the specific devise of 187 acres had been adeemed,
because it was conveyed away and Vivian no longer had legal title to the land at the time of her death.
However, the acres which were conveyed into the family corporation was a change of form, not of
substance. Therefore, the chancellor was correct in finding that the shares of stock should be distributed
under the specific devises of land in Vivian's will.
¶18. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF LEFLORE COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
