Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2024-CA-00964-COA IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GRACE APPELLANT/CROSS- J. HOWELL, DECEASED: STEVE LAMPTON APPELLEE v. KEVIN HOWELL AS EXECUTOR OF THE APPELLEE/CROSS- ESTATE OF GRACE J. HOWELL APPELLANT DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/09/2024 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. J. LARRY BUFFINGTON COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LAMAR COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: WILLIAM A. WHITEHEAD JR. RICHARD D. NORTON MADISON CHANDLER WRIGHT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: RICHARD ANTHONY FILCE NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES DISPOSITION: ON DIRECT APPEAL: AFFIRMED; ON CROSS-APPEAL: AFFIRMED - 07/21/2026 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: CONSOLIDATED WITH NO. 2024-CA-01046-COA KEVIN HOWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS APPELLANTS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF GRACE J. HOWELL AND TRENT HOWELL v. THE ESTATE OF TED LAVON HOWELL, APPELLEES DENICE STISHER HOWELL, STEVE LAMPTON, ANTHONY HUNT AND BRANDY HUNT DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/16/2024 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. J. LARRY BUFFINGTON COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LAMAR COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: RICHARD ANTHONY FILCE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: RICHARD D. NORTON WILLIAM A. WHITEHEAD JR. CHRISTOPHER D. MEYER NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATE DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART - 07/21/2026 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., LAWRENCE AND McCARTY, JJ. LAWRENCE, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. These appeals involve a will contest about property Grace Howell owned and devised in her will to be inherited by her son and two grandsons. After her death, her only son, Ted Howell, sold the property to Steve Lampton, who sold it for a profit to Brandy and Anthony Hunt. Ted kept the money for himself, and the grandsons, Kevin and Trent Howell, brought an action to set aside the deeds. In a separate action, Kevin admitted a copy of Grace’s most recent will for probate. Lampton challenged the validity of the will in an attempt to maintain the validity of the property conveyances to him and then the Hunts. In the final judgment, the chancellor upheld the copy of Grace’s will as valid and duly probated but found that the Hunts, who were dismissed as parties, had purchased the property in good faith. The chancellor therefore awarded the grandsons monetary damages. After careful review, this Court affirms the chancellor’s ruling as to the validity of the will and the Hunts’ involuntary dismissal but reverses and renders the chancellor’s award of damages. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. In 1977, Grace and Herbert Howell acquired family land in Lamar County from Hershel and Marie Howell. Herbert and Grace later sold approximately 20 acres of their 2 Lamar County property to her neighbor Steve Lampton. Herbert passed in the late 1990s, and the unsold portion remained Grace’s property. Grace’s property included two parcels—one parcel was unimproved, and Grace resided in a house on the second parcel. In July 1999, Grace granted Lampton a “Right of First Refusal and Option to Purchase.” ¶3. Grace’s one son, Ted, and his wife, Glenna Howell, had two sons—Trent and Kevin. Ted and Glenna eventually divorced, and Ted remarried Denice Stisher Howell. Ted and Denice lived together in Huntsville, Alabama, until they were legally separated in 2012. ¶4. In March 2007, Grace signed a Last Will and Testament, which stated, in part: I DEVISE TO MY Son, TED LAVON HOWELL, one-third, if he survives me; one-third to my Grandson, TRENT ALLEN HOWELL; and one-third to my Grandson, KEVIN LEE HOWELL all of my right, title and interest in and to the home and acreage located at 277 Richburg Road, Purvis, Mississippi or any other home in which I am residing at the time of my death. . . . Grace appointed Ted as the executor, but in the event he could not serve, Kevin would be appointed. The will was witnessed by Lampton1 and Glenna, Ted’s first wife. The signatures on the will were notarized by Wayne Smith, the Lamar County Chancery Clerk. Grace’s health subsequently deteriorated, and on February 28, 2008, she executed a power of attorney, appointing Ted as her “attorney-in-fact.” Eventually, Ted moved Grace to Huntsville to live with him.2 ¶5. On June 30, 2010, Kevin bought from Grace, through Ted acting as Grace’s power 1 Lampton was the neighbor who previously purchased 20 acres from Grace and Herbert. 2 There is conflicting evidence on when exactly Grace moved to Huntsville. Denice testified it was in November 2007 and Kevin testified it was in 2009. Regardless, there is no dispute that Grace lived in Huntsville by 2010. 3 of attorney, the parcel of land where Grace’s house was located. Kevin also entered into a deed of trust with “Ted Lavon Howell, as attorney-in-fact of Grace Jane Jordan Howell” for the sum of $141,000 for the purchase of the house and second parcel of land. Grace died on June 14, 2012, and at the time of her death, she owned the remaining one parcel of land that was unimproved. After Grace’s death, Kevin opened the house to family and friends to take any personal sentimental belongings that they desired. ¶6. Instead of probating Grace’s will, Ted and Kevin contacted a Hattiesburg attorney who drafted a quitclaim deed that conveyed the property from Ted, Kevin, and Trent as grantors, to Ted, Kevin, and Trent as tenants in common. In creating the deed, Kevin, via email, requested Ted send a copy of Grace’s will, and Ted sent the following email on December 7, 2015: Kevin, I located subject document. It was in a file in my desk drawer. Do you need a copy? If so, can I scan and email same to you? It was notarized by Rachel Sullivan, a branch manager of the Regions bank on Hwy 98. I hesitate to mail the original. Let me know what works for you. Dad The email attachments were not produced. The quitclaim deed, which was dated December 20, 2016, was fully executed but never recorded in the county land records. ¶7. Ted’s physical and financial well-being began to deteriorate, which resulted in Ted moving back into his marital home with Denice sometime in 2016. After the move, Ted appointed Denice as the primary beneficiary for his 401(k) retirement account, his will, and a “pay-on-death” bank account. Denice also was appointed Ted’s power of attorney. Denice began managing Ted’s finances and assisting him in handling his correspondence. 4 ¶8. On September 27, 2017, Ted sold the unimproved parcel of land Grace owned to Lampton for $40,000. The warranty deed stated that Ted “is the sole legal and lawful heir” of Grace. Heirship affidavits from local pastors who knew Grace—Robert Holifield and Gregory Medenwald—were attached to the deed. The heirship affidavits did not mention that Grace had a will but stated that her only child was Ted. On November 14, 2017, just a few months after buying the property, Lampton sold the same parcel to his neighbors, the Hunts, for $65,000.3 The heirship affidavits were redone by the same local pastors, but this time they swore that Grace did not have a will. ¶9. In January 2018, Kevin went to pay the property taxes for the two parcels of land and discovered that the taxes had already been paid.4 That is when Kevin discovered his father, Ted, had sold the unimproved parcel. On March 2, 2018, Ted died. I. Commencement of Litigation ¶10. On September 17, 2018, Kevin filed a “Petition to Probate Will in Common Form” in the Chancery Court of Lamar County (“the will case”). In his petition, Kevin requested authority to file a complaint on behalf of Grace’s Estate to recover title to the property that was sold first to Lampton and then to the Hunts. Kevin attached a copy of the March 2007 will that was witnessed by Lampton and Glenna. An affidavit from Glenna, a subscribing witness, was also attached. Trent joined Kevin in the petition. 3 The Hunts had acquired land in 2003 that neighbored Grace and Lampton’s property. 4 The two parcels included the one Kevin had bought from Grace before she died and the unimproved parcel, which he was supposed to inherit the one-third interest in according to Grace’s will. The unimproved parcel is the subject of this litigation. 5 ¶11. On September 20, 2018, an “Order Admitting Will to Probate in Common Form” was entered. It stated that Kevin had “set forth sufficient evidence that decedent did not destroy the original Will with the intent to revoke the same, nor did she execute any other subsequent Will.” It further granted Kevin leave to file a complaint to set aside the deeds. ¶12. On the same day as the order admitting Grace’s will to probate, Kevin, Trent, and the Estate of Grace (collectively referred to hereafter as “Kevin”) filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Lamar County against Lampton, Ted’s Estate,5 and the Hunts. The complaint requested that the deeds to Lampton and the Hunts be canceled and monetary damages be awarded (“the property case”). Litigation proceeded on both cases separately; however, they were both assigned to Special Chancellor Larry Buffington.6 ¶13. On February 11, 2019, Lampton filed a “Notice of Claim” in the will case, arguing that “because of the delay between . . . Grace Howell’s death in 2012 . . . and the time of the filing of opening of the Estate of Grace . . . the Petition to Probate the Estate of Grace J. Howell is improper.” It further stated that “[b]y copy of this Motion . . . Movant is notifying all parties that are involved in the property once owned by Grace Howell that this matter is hereby contested.” ¶14. On March 28, 2019, in the property case, Kevin moved to add Denice as a defendant. 5 Ted’s Estate was opened by Denice, Ted’s second wife, in Alabama, but throughout the course of litigation here, the Alabama estate was closed. The record evidences that, eventually, an ancillary estate in Mississippi was opened for the purposes of this litigation. 6 Kevin filed motions for recusal in both the will and property cases arguing that the chancellors should recuse due to Lampton’s service on the Lamar County Board of Supervisors. All chancellors in the Tenth Chancery Court District recused, necessitating the appointment of a special chancellor. 6 Kevin alleged that Denice was married to Ted at the time of the execution of the deed to Lampton and had “negotiated the terms of the sale with Lampton and received and/or transmitted the required documents and payments.” Kevin alleged that Denice committed fraud by knowingly denying Kevin and Trent their “rightful interests in the property” under Grace’s will, threatening “to withhold care from Ted unless he kept all of the sale proceeds,” and receiving the proceeds from the sale of the property. The chancellor granted Kevin’s motion, and Denice was added as a party in the property case. II. Trial in the Property Case ¶15. On May 11-13, 2021, a bench trial was held in the property case. ¶16. Kevin testified first. He stated that he grew up spending time on his grandmother’s property. As a young adult, Kevin lived with Grace on and off until 2006, when he was in a motorcycle accident that broke his lower back and caused a spinal cord injury. After the accident, Grace’s home did not accommodate his wheelchair, so he moved into an apartment in Hattiesburg with Glenna. Kevin stated that he was in college when Glenna and Ted divorced, and he did not really have a relationship with Denice. ¶17. Kevin testified that during her life, Grace had three wills. The first will was prepared in the 1990s by Robert Holified—the same Robert Holifield who was a local pastor and provided heirship affidavits for Lampton and the Hunts’ property deeds. Kevin stated that he saw Holifield deliver a draft of this will but did not see Grace sign it. The second will contained the same language as the third will (i.e., real property was left to Ted, Trent, and Kevin), but the second will had different subscribing witnesses whose signatures were 7 notarized by a different official. Kevin testified that his coworkers witnessed the second will, and Rachel Sullivan notarized their signatures. ¶18. According to Kevin, Grace’s last will was created in 2007. Kevin stated that this third will was prepared by Ted at the request of Grace, who desired to have her will executed before with subscribing witnesses she knew and trusted. Kevin stated that he was not present at the signing of the third will but said that Grace had discussed its creation and shown him the document after it was signed. ¶19. Kevin testified that Ted had the original will after Grace moved to Huntsville. Kevin also testified that in 2016, after Grace’s death, Ted asked him to contact a Hattiesburg attorney to transfer the property out of Grace’s name. According to Kevin, the attorney recommended a quitclaim deed for the property instead of probating the will. Kevin stated that Ted had the original will and sent him a copy of the will via email, but Kevin also admitted that Ted sent him a copy of Grace’s second will in the email, not the third will from 2007. Kevin stated that Ted asked him to hold off on filing the quitclaim deed because Ted was considering gifting his portion of the land to Trent and Kevin. ¶20. Kevin stated that on September 19, 2017, he received a phone call from Anthony Hunt (“Anthony”). According to Kevin’s phone records, they had a thirty-minute conversation on that day. Kevin stated that they discussed whether Kevin would be interested in selling Anthony a portion of Kevin’s land. Kevin allegedly told Anthony the property “wasn’t for sale[.]” The following testimony was elicited: Q. So how did the subject property come up in the conversation? A. He asked me what I – I think he – maybe he thought I owned it. He 8 asked me what I was going to do with that property and I told him that it didn’t belong to me. It belonged to me and my brother and my dad together and we had no plans to sell it or do anything with it. Q. Did you explain anything to him regarding how it is that it belongs to the three of us? A. I just told him it had been left to us. ¶21. Kevin stated that he went to pay the property taxes in late January 2018, but he was told that the taxes had already been paid. Kevin stated that he called his father, who merely told him that Lampton had paid the taxes. Kevin subsequently text messaged Lampton, who told Kevin that he had sold the property to the Hunts. Kevin later spoke with Ted about the sale prior to Ted’s death in March 2018. ¶22. Kevin stated that he had bought Grace’s house and had spent a significant portion of his money renovating the house to accommodate his specific physical needs. He had slowed progress on the renovations, however, due to the litigation. Kevin further stated that the money from Ted’s sale of the land was deposited into a bank account payable on death to Denice, allegedly unjustly enriching her when Ted died. Kevin also stated he went through Grace’s belongings and disposed of them but never found the original will. ¶23. On cross-examination by Denice’s attorney, Kevin was asked about his purchase of Grace’s house. Kevin’s attorney objected to relevance and a failure to plead a “counter-claim or offset” by Ted’s Estate. The chancellor overruled the objection, allowing Kevin to be questioned. The chancellor allowed the deed of trust and deed to be admitted into evidence. The deed of trust evidenced that Kevin bought the house for $140,000, and Kevin testified that he had paid approximately $90,000 on the note. Kevin testified that the money he paid on the note went to Ted for Grace’s care in the nursing home, but when she died, Ted told 9 Kevin “to stop sending money.” ¶24. An email was produced that showed Ted telling Kevin that he would no longer be paying the water and electric bills for the house due to his income being “drastically reduced.” Ted further stated in the email: I really need the remaining $17,500 for my share of the house. . . . .... In addition, I made my wishes known to both you and Trent regarding the final piece of property to be sold. Please send me the contact information for the attorney I sent you money to pay. As you may not have time, I will pursue selling the property and making distribution of the money. This needs to be done ASAP. If I am forced into bankruptcy, the property could easily be lost to all three of us as that would be considered my asset and having signed parts over to you and Trent would be viewed as my trying to prevent creditors from being paid. Kevin stated that he never paid Ted the money for the house because, according to Kevin, they spoke after the email, and Ted said he did not want him to send the money. Kevin also said that Denice had access to Ted’s email and that Ted later called and told him, “We are going to keep Howell business on the phone between the Howells.” ¶25. Robert Holifield testified after Kevin. He was the minister who had provided heirship affidavits for both Lampton’s and the Hunts’ deeds. He stated that he had known Grace and Herbert Howell since 1962, when they were members of his church. Holifield admitted that he drafted a will for Grace after Herbert died but did not know what happened after he delivered it to her—whether she signed it or not. Holifield also admitted that he knowingly signed the heirship affidavit for Lampton, in which he swore Grace did not have a will. 10 ¶26. Denice also testified at trial. She stated that Ted moved back into her house in 2016 after being in poor physical and financial health. Ted was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease, and although he was still able to work, he needed assistance. Denice testified that she would help Ted log in to his work emails and that she would take dictation from him. Denice stated that she helped Ted with any of his personal issues if he asked for her help. Ted eventually fell and broke his ankle, so Denice hired a helper to assist him daily with physical needs. Denice stated that Ted was “upside down on his mortgage, upside down on his car payments[,]” had $10,000 stolen from his account by a woman who was living with him before moving back in with Denice, and “had between 75 and $80,000 in credit card debt.” ¶27. Denice admitted that during this time, Ted named her as his 401(k) beneficiary and made a new will naming her as his primary beneficiary. She also testified that she helped Ted apply for “disability insurance benefits” that were deposited into an “Avidian Credit Union” account, of which she was named the “pay-on-death” beneficiary. ¶28. Approximately nine days after Denice became a beneficiary of the Avidian account, she reached out to Lampton about selling Grace’s property. Denice stated that Ted received a postcard offering $20,000 for the property, which prompted Ted to ask Denice to call Lampton to see if he knew how much the property was worth. Denice stated that Lampton and Ted talked on the phone, and then Denice and Lampton “began a text message exchange discussing the property.” Denice stated that Lampton told her the property was worth at least $60,000 but that Lampton could not afford to buy it at fair market value at that time. 11 ¶29. Lampton and Denice’s text messages were admitted into evidence. The conversations evidence a discussion between Denice and Lampton—first about price; they eventually agreed that Lampton would pay $40,000 for the property and cover closing costs, including a survey, court costs, and title work. Denice frequently updated Lampton on her and Ted’s health and discussed the logistics surrounding the sale, such as mailing and receiving the deeds. On September 4, 2017, the following text messages were sent regarding the price: [Denice:] Steve, Ted says that is agreeable to him. Should I tell his lawyer to take the land out of his will? Not certain what time frame you are looking at. Thanks. [Lampton:] It will take me a few weeks to have survey and title work done. I will get on it tomorrow. Tell him I am Very appreciative of the opportunity to be able to hand pick new neighbors. I would think the will should be amended.” ¶30. Denice testified that she wanted Ted to keep the money from the sale for his care. Additional text messages contained the following discussion: [Denice:] Ted started telling me he wasn’t going to tell Trent and Kevin until he sent them their share. I told him he needs the money for his care and if he splits with them, he can move to MS or GA. I guess that was really ugly of me but they are not dealing with his situation at all... [Lampton:] I understand. You are in a tough situation[.] [Denice:] Thanks. I truly believe that if they cared more effort would be put into keeping in touch with him. ¶31. Denice stated that the deed was mailed from Mississippi to her house in Huntsville, at which point she arranged for someone to bring the deed to Ted, who was in a nursing home, for him to sign and have it notarized. Then she also had the deed mailed back to Mississippi. Denice later arranged for the check to be brought to Ted, signed, and deposited in the Avidian account. 12 ¶32. Additional text messages between Denice and Lampton evidenced a discussion over whether Ted and Kevin should be told about the sale. On February 15, 2016, Lampton sent Denice a message: I hope ya’ll can get this worked out while Ted feels well enough to deal with it. I hope you don’t mind me saying that I strongly encourage you to insist that Ted personally talk with both boys and get this settle[d] before his health deteriorates again. This does not need to drag out for months or years to come. Thank you. Denice responded with: I will encourage him to talk to them. It goes against my better judgement because they have done nothing but take advantage of him over the years. If you divide the $ three ways and then subtract $ Kevin still owes Ted, It should only be around $92000. They will definitely need to know how much Ted sold the land for if he talks to them. Thanks. Denice stated that Kevin owed Ted money because Kevin bought Grace’s house. ¶33. Later, after Ted’s death, text messages between Lampton and Denice evidence the following discussion on October 24, 2018: [Denice:] Received paperwork today where Kevin and Trent are filing suit over the property. Not surprised but not certain what they expect. The estate doesn’t have enough money to pay all of Ted’s bills. [Lampton:] That is exactly why I asked that y’all tell the boys about the sell [sic] of the property. I don’t know what is going to happen but it was my understanding that Ted was the sole owner and sold the land to me in good faith. [Denice:] Actually, you said that you thought it best NOT to tell them. Ted sold it with the understanding that he had the right to do so. The boys (Kevin) never paid Ted his portion of what he owned him on the house or $7000 in student loans Ted paid on his behalf. Ted had asked Kevin for that money and Kevin refused to pay it. Denice testified that after that text, Lampton called her and said, “If you recall, what I said 13 was please don’t tell the boys how much I paid for the land. [Denice] said, Yes. Now that you’ve said that I do recall.” ¶34. Denice stated that after Ted moved back in with her in 2016, she did a “page-by-page, file-by-file search” of Ted’s work papers but did not find Grace’s will. She also stated, however, that she overheard a phone conversation between Kevin and Ted during which Kevin stated, “I have her original will.” Denice also admitted that in her role as the administrator of Ted’s Estate, she never pursued a claim against Kevin for the money owed on the deed of trust, and the email asking Kevin for the money was dictated to her by Ted. ¶35. Anthony, the neighbor who bought the land from Lampton after he had purchased it from Ted, testified after Denice. He stated that he had no knowledge of Grace’s will and that Lampton had told him Ted was her only heir. Hunt testified that he had only spoken with Kevin twice prior to purchasing the property. Their first conversation was in 2015 regarding a different portion of wooded land between his house and Kevin’s house, and Anthony asked to buy an acre of this portion from Kevin. Anthony admitted that in 2017 he talked with Kevin again about the same acre of wooded land between their houses. Anthony testified, however, that he never spoke with Kevin about the disputed parcel and that he did not know that Kevin “owned or claimed ownership to any portion of the” disputed parcel. ¶36. Trent testified on the third day of trial. He stated, similar to Kevin, that he grew up spending time on his grandparents’ land, and “[a]ny time school was out, we were in Mississippi.” Trent testified that he helped his grandfather Herbert build the house that Kevin now owns. He stated that his parents divorced after 36 years of marriage, when he 14 was 26 years old, and due to the divorce, Grace “made arrangements” for the land to be divided among Ted, Trent, and Kevin. Trent stated that “we probably never would have done [the will] at all if my dad would have never got divorced.” Trent stated that he saw the will “right after it was done,” on his next visit to see Grace, but that he never saw the original will again. Trent testified that he did not know where the original will was and that he never went to the house where Ted and Denice lived to look for Grace’s will after Ted died. Trent further stated that “[Lampton] is the one that put [Grace’s will] together, he helped her.” ¶37. Trent testified that after Grace died, by agreement, the house was opened and “[a]nybody that wanted anything was allowed to get stuff.” Trent stated that Ted wanted to avoid probate, so he gave Kevin money to get a lawyer and “draw all of this paperwork up.” Trent stated he merely got a call that a FedEx package was in the mail that contained a deed he needed to sign. After Trent signed the quitclaim deed, he testified that Ted called him and said, “I’m thinking that I’m just going to give you and Kevin my share, he said, it’s not that much. It is not going to be much inheritance, but I wanted to just go ahead when we do this quitclaim deed, we won’t have to do it twice.” Trent said he never heard anything else about the deed and never heard Ted say anything about selling the property. ¶38. On cross-examination, Trent stated that he never spoke with the Hunts about Grace’s will. He also was asked about the money Kevin owed from his purchase of Grace’s house. Trent stated that he had not received any money from that sale and had not asked Kevin for any payment. ¶39. After Trent’s testimony, Kevin rested. The Hunts, Lampton, and Denice moved for 15 involuntary dismissals. The chancellor granted an involuntary dismissal for the Hunts based on the theory that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The trial continued as to Lampton, Denice, and Ted’s Estate. ¶40. Lampton was then called to testify. He stated that Grace was “like a mother” to him and had granted him a right of first refusal to her property. Lampton stated that he had completely forgotten that he had signed Grace’s will until he saw it at his attorney’s office. Lampton testified that he had not prepared the will, despite what Trent had testified, but that he had discussions with Grace after the will was executed where she expressed that she was conflicted about not leaving everything to Ted. Lampton stated that he did not remember the will when he was discussing the sale of the property with Denice, but he did remember his conversations with Grace over her conflicted feelings. ¶41. Regarding Holifield’s heirship affidavit, Lampton agreed that Holifield told him he had written a will for Grace and that Holifield still had a copy of the will. Lampton’s trial testimony conflicted with his deposition testimony that Holifield told him Grace had signed the will. At trial, Lampton stated he was incorrect about that, and he said that Holifield never told him Grace had signed the will. ¶42. The trial ended after Lampton’s testimony. The chancellor asked for all parties to submit findings of facts and conclusions of law. III. Litigation Continues to Final Judgments ¶43. On June 30, 2021, Lampton filed a motion in the will case to supplement his “Notice of Claim” that was filed on February 11, 2019. Lampton directly challenged the validity of 16 the copy of the will and argued, for the first time, that the court should apply a presumption of revocation because the original will could not be found. Lampton relied on testimony from the May 2021 trial in the property case. Kevin filed a motion to strike, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired and that Lampton had failed to timely assert the will-contest claim. ¶44. On October 12, 2022, the chancellor denied Kevin’s motion to strike. The chancellor’s reasoning was given on the record at the hearing on the motion to strike on September 29, 2022. The chancellor reasoned that the notice of claim stated that Lampton was “contesting the matter,” and the “matter” was the will; so Lampton sufficiently put Kevin on notice that he was challenging the will. ¶45. On December 8, 2022, a bench trial was held in the will case. Testimony and other evidence from the trial in the property case was “adopted” into the record of the will case for the chancellor’s consideration in his ruling. Otherwise, Kevin was the only witness who provided additional testimony. ¶46. On February 9, 2024, the chancery court entered a Rule 54(b) final judgment in the will case, and the same judgment was entered in the property case on February 16, 2024.7 The chancellor upheld the copy of Grace’s will as valid. The chancellor found that Ted and 7 The judgment is styled as only pertaining to the will contest case; however, the final judgment states that the case “came on for hearing after the Consolidation of the Estate of Grace Howell, the Estate of Ted Lavon Howell and the underlying case of the Estate of Grace Howell, Kevin Howell and Trent Howell verses the Estate of Ted Howell, Steve Lampton, Anthony G. Hunt and Brandy L. Hunt and Deni[c]e Howell[.]” Further, this Court notes that in both the will case’s trial transcript and the post-trial hearing transcript, the chancellor made clear that the judgment was for both cases. The parties do not dispute that a final, appealable judgment was appealed from in both cases. 17 Lampton “should have been on notice that certain matters should have been disclosed” to their closing attorneys due to the fact that no estate for Grace had been opened and the deeds/heirship affidavits stated how Ted had received his interest in the property. ¶47. Nevertheless, the chancellor upheld his prior ruling that the Hunts were good faith purchasers for value. The chancellor reasoned that since the will was valid, the only remedy was to award Kevin and Trent “a judgment for 2/3rd’s the value” of the property that was improperly sold by Ted, which was calculated as $43,800. The chancellor then subtracted $17,500 from the two-thirds value, setting off the damages by the value allegedly owed by Kevin to Ted for the purchase of Grace’s house. Kevin and Trent were awarded a judgment of $26,300 with interest against Lampton and Ted’s Estate, jointly and severally. Further, damages were awarded against Denice and Ted’s Estate, jointly and severally, “in the amount of $50,000 in actual damages [as] well as $20,000 in attorney fees.” IV. Post-trial Proceedings and Appellate Proceedings ¶48. Kevin filed post-trial motions in both the will and the property cases. A hearing on the motions was held on June 6, 2024. The chancellor denied Kevin’s post-trial motion in the will case on August 7, 2024, and in the property case the chancellor corrected the damages awarded in that case’s final judgment. The August 13, 2024, order stated: The Court calculates the Plaintiff’s two-thirds interest as $43,733.34. As recited in the Final Judgment the Court finds that the damages should be further reduced by $17,500, for a total damages of $26,233.34. This award shall be joint and several against Denice Stisher-Howell, The Estate of Ted Howell, and Steve Lampton. The chancellor also clarified the final judgment’s award of $50,000 as compensatory 18 damages, and the $20,000 for attorney’s fees were awarded “in lieu of punitive damages.” Otherwise, the motion to amend was denied. ¶49. The case records were still separated, and no order for consolidation was entered in the chancery court records. In the will case, Lampton filed a notice of appeal on August 22, 2024, and Kevin filed a notice of cross-appeal on September 4, 2024. In the property case, only Kevin filed a notice of appeal on September 12, 2024. ¶50. On February 4, 2025, Lampton filed a motion in the Supreme Court requesting consolidation of the two cases. Kevin opposed the motion. The supreme court granted the motion in part by ordering that the appellate records “be administratively consolidated” but that “briefing in each appeal should proceed separately.”8 ¶51. On May 23, 2025, prior to assignment of these appeals to our Court, Kevin filed a motion on appeal in only the will case entitled “Motion to Docket and Dismiss Appeal.” Kevin argued that because the cases were not “fully” consolidated, Lampton does not have standing to appeal the will case because of his failure to file a notice of appeal in the property case. Kevin stated that “[h]aving failed to file an appeal of the adverse decision in 2024-CA- 01046, Lamar County Chancery Cause No. 18-cv-342 (the ‘property case’), Lampton no longer has standing to appeal in this Estate matter.” Kevin contended that the motion to consolidate the appeals, which was filed by Lampton and granted in part for administrative consolidation, was Lampton’s “after-the-fact attempt to recover” from the failure to file a notice of appeal in the property case. The supreme court assigned the case to this Court and 8 This Court entered an order on March 25, 2026, consolidating the two cases for the purpose of the appeals. 19 ordered that “the motion should be passed for consideration with the merits of the appeal.” This Court entered an order consolidating the appeals on March 25, 2026, and we deny the motion to dismiss. See infra ¶¶99-102. ISSUES PRESENTED ¶52. In the will case, Lampton asserted as an issue on appeal: I. Whether the chancellor erred by finding that all factors establishing the presumption of revocation were satisfied but, ultimately, whether the will proponent successfully rebutted this presumption by clear and convincing evidence. Kevin cross-appealed in the will case and raised the following issues: II. Whether the chancellor erred by finding that the two-year statute of limitations did not bar Lampton’s claim. III. Whether Lampton waived his grounds for appeal by failing to file a post-trial motion. Kevin appealed in the property case, and in his brief, he raised the following issues: IV. Whether the chancellor erred by granting the Hunts’ motion for involuntary dismissal. V. Alternatively, whether the chancellor erred in his award of damages. Lastly, this Court will address Kevin’s motion that challenges: VI. Whether the appeal is moot and whether Lampton has standing. ANALYSIS I. Whether the chancellor erred by finding that all factors establishing the presumption of revocation were satisfied but, ultimately, whether the will proponent successfully rebutted this presumption by clear and convincing evidence. ¶53. This issue was the only one Lampton raised in his appeal. Lampton argued that all 20 factors establishing the presumption of revocation were met and that “the trial court erred in its application of the presumption of revocation” and in finding that Grace’s will was valid. A. Presumption of Revocation ¶54. “[W]hen a will cannot be found following the death of a testator and it can be shown that the testator was the last person in possession of the will, there arises a rebuttable presumption of revocation.” In re Est. of Mitchell, 623 So. 2d 274, 275 (Miss. 1993). “Our Court does not lightly credit claims [that] a man has revoked his will, by destruction or otherwise.” In re Est. of Leggett, 584 So. 2d 400, 402 (Miss. 1991). i. Will Contest ¶55. The admission of Grace’s will to probate created a prima facie case that the will was valid. Mississippi Code Annotated section 91-7-27 (Rev. 2021) states: “[o]n the trial of an issue made up to determine the validity of a will which has been duly admitted to probate, such probate shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the will.” See al