Will Address Importance

 🚨 Don’t Let a Simple Mistake Invalidate Your Will: The Importance of Witness Addresses in Mississippi Estate Planning

When it comes to estate planning, details matter—and sometimes, one missing detail can destroy your entire plan.

In a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, a will was ruled invalid simply because the addresses of the witnesses were missing from the affidavits attached to the will. The case, In re Estate of Autry, serves as a stark warning to anyone drafting or executing a will in Mississippi.

📜 The Law: What Does Mississippi Require?

Under Mississippi Code Annotated § 91-7-7, the execution of a will can be proven by affidavits from the subscribing witnesses. But here’s the key: those affidavits must include the addresses of each witness.

If this step is skipped, the will is not considered “duly authenticated” and may be thrown out entirely—no matter how clear the deceased’s intentions were.

❌ Real-World Consequence: Invalidation of the Will

In Estate of Autry (2025), the court rejected the will because the affidavits from the two witnesses lacked their addresses. The entire will was deemed invalid, potentially leaving the decedent's estate to be distributed according to Mississippi’s intestacy laws—which may not reflect their wishes at all.

ABLE Accounts

 

There is a solution on settlement of cases for ($20,000 or less) for clients with disabilities, so that they don’t lose Medicaid or SSI benefits.

 In 2019, Mississippi enacted the Mississippi ABLE Act that implements the federal ABLE Act. It allows for an account for a person with a disability that began prior to age 26 (to be raised to age 46 in 2026) that will not be counted by SSI or Medicaid as part of the beneficiary’s assets. SSI limits countable assets to $2,000 (including funds in a conservatorship) and some Medicaid programs limit countable assets to $4,000.

 The maximum amount that can be deposited to an ABLE account in a calendar year is the same as the fed gift tax annual per done exclusion amount - $18,000 in 2024.  So, a person on SSI who receives a $20,000 settlement  could put $2,000 or less in a checking account and $18,000 in an ABLE account and keep SSI and Medicaid.

Divorce and Life Insurance

 

Miss. Code Ann. Section 91-29-23 revokes a divorced spouse’s designation as life insurance beneficiary (absent some specified exceptions) from and after July 1, 2020.

 Prior to July 1, 2020, the mere act of divorce in Mississippi did NOT divest a spouse of her rights as the designated beneficiary under a life insurance policy insuring the life of her ex husband.  First Columbus Nat. Bank vs. D.S. Pate Lumber Co., 141 So. 767 (Miss. 1932)

Case of Interest

Yesterday, the Mississippi Supreme Court decided American Compensation Insurance Company v. Hector Ruiz, Doing Business As Los Primoz Construction; Raul Aparacio; Jesco, Incorporated; and Appalachian Underwriters, Incorporated located here.  This was a good decision for workers as it found that an insurance company cannot void coverage due to alleged misrepresentations by an employer in filling out a worker's comp insurance application.    Ironically, we had resolved a case in the Western District of Tennessee coming to the same conclusion a few months earlier. 

Book of Interest

 AAJ just released Litigation Obstruction:  Breaking Through by Mark Kosieradzki.   I received a copy last week and it is excellent and perhaps the most detailed book I have seen on answering or lack of answers on discovery.   A link to it is here.   

Possible Language to Add to Mediation Agreement

 

There are no other material terms to the settlement other than as set forth in this mediation agreement” “The mediation agreement sets for the intent of the parties and shall be attached and adopted by any subsequent release”

 

ABA Ethics Opinion

 

The American Bar Association (ABA) last week issued Formal Opinion 511 stating that, under Rule 1.6 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, attorneys do not have implied authorization to reveal information about a client’s representation to a wider group of lawyers by posting a comment or inquiry on a listserver discussion group. To do so within ethical boundaries, lawyers must have the client’s informed consent.

Rule 1.6 prohibits lawyers from revealing information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent. It is not limited to information subject to attorney-client privilege. Extending the rule to listserver postings, the opinion pointed out that posting to a listserver is not the same as seeking the counsel of an individual lawyer or select group of lawyers in a client matter. Participants in a listserver discussion group are often unknown to the person posting. As such, attorneys cannot count on the audience to keep any disclosures confidential. In fact, the opinion noted, there is no way for the posting lawyer to ensure that their client’s information will not be disseminated further by another listserver participant, used against the client, or even seen by those representing another party in the same case.

Similarly, lawyers cannot skirt the rule by posting in “anonymized, hypothetical, or [ ] abstracted form” if there is a reasonable likelihood that someone seeing the posting could discover the client’s identity. Posting in hypothetical or anonymous terms must therefore also be done only with the client’s informed consent. Rule 1.0(e) provides guidelines for what constitutes informed consent.

The opinion recognized that listservers can fulfill a useful educational purpose for lawyers. It acknowledged that these discussion groups can be a good way for attorneys to stay abreast of changes in the law, update each other about new case law, and share recommendations. Using listservers in these ways is unrelated to specific client matters and can therefore be done without obtaining a client’s informed consent. The opinion cautioned, however, that lawyers should remain vigilant about the confidentiality risks listservers pose and should be mindful of ethical boundaries before posting anything to a listserver.

Attorney Amir Tahmassebi, who is a co-chair of the Chicago Bar Association’s professional responsibility committee, said “In my view, ABA Opinion 511 correctly interprets Rule 1.6 and provides important guidance relating to disclosing confidential information. It highlights the importance of attorneys protecting their client’s confidential information, which is the bedrock of the attorney-client relationship."