Any person interested may, at any time within two years, by petition or bill, contest the validity of the will probated without notice; and an issue shall be made up and tried as other issues to determine whether the writing produced be the will of the testator or not. If some person does not appear within two years to contest the will, the probate shall be final and forever binding, saving to infants and persons of unsound mind the period of two years to contest the will after the removal of their respective disabilities. In case of concealed fraud, the limitation shall commence to run at, and not before, the time when such fraud shall be, or with reasonable diligence might have been, first known or discovered.
Codes, Hutchinson's 1848, ch. 49, art. 1 (29); 1857, ch. 60, art. 43; 1871, § 1099; 1880, § 1961; 1892, § 1822; 1906, § 1997; Hemingway's 1917, § 1662; 1930, § 1609; 1942, § 505.
Notes of Decisions
WINDING v. Est. of Winding, 783 So. 2d 707 (Miss. 2001).
· cites it 4× “On July 20, 1999, the Estate of Rosia Lee Winding ("Winding") filed a motion to dismiss for failure to timely file a will contest per Miss.Code Ann. § 91-7-23 (1994) which establishes a two-year statute of limitations on such actions.”
Tillotson v. Anders, 551 So. 2d 212 (Miss. 1989).
“Miss. Code Ann. §§ 91-7-23 , 91-7-29; Fowler v.”
Power v. Scott, 837 So. 2d 202 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “In addition, the chancellor found that the Powers were not "interested parties" under Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-23 (Rev.1994) because they stood to receive exactly the same bequest whether they took under Ellen's first or second will.”
Matter of Est. of McClerkin, 651 So. 2d 1052 (Miss. 1995).
“Both the executor and the beneficiaries under the will filed motions to dismiss claiming that the will was not contested within two years from and after the date of October 21, 1987, as required by Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-23 (1972). Thus, the action was barred.”
In Re Est. of Mathis, 800 So. 2d 119 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “The Parkses argue that Miss.Code Ann. § 91-7-23 (Rev. 1994) should apply because of their claim that they are "interested parties" as provided in the statute.”
Trotter v. Trotter, 490 So. 2d 827 (Miss. 1986).
“Herman Trotter probated the 1980 will in common form and it was admitted to probate, thereby creating prima facie evidence of the validity of the 1980 will. Miss. Code Ann.”
Matter of Est. of Davis, 510 So. 2d 798 (Miss. 1987).
“12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), finding it barred by Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-23 (1972), which states, Any person interested may, at any time within two years, by petition or bill, contest the validity of the will probated without notice; and an issue shall be made up and tried as other…”
In Re Est. of Kelly, 951 So. 2d 543 (Miss. 2007).
“The only exception to this long established two-year limitation is where concealed fraud is proven, and in the present case, Kelly knew of the Mississippi will and that it had been filed for probate in Mississippi more than three years before he attempted to contest it.”
In Re Will of Fields, 570 So. 2d 1202 (Miss. 1990).
· cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-23 (1972) provides: Any person interested may, at any time within two years, by petition or bill, contest the validity of the will probated without notice; and an issue shall be made up and tried as other issues to determine whether the writing produced be…”
Est. of Perry v. Perry, 61 So. 3d 193 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).
“See Miss.Code Ann. § 91-7-23 (Rev.2004) (two-year limit to contest will probated in common form).”
In Re Est. of Kelly, 951 So. 2d 564 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).
“Miss.Code Ann. § 91-7-23 (Rev.2004). The second exception is for concealed fraud.”
Matter of Last Will & Testament of Dickey, 542 So. 2d 903 (Miss. 1989).
“In a separate Chancery Court action filed June 16, 1983, this suit was brought by Bob Dickey against his sister Helen asserting the issue of devisavit vel non under Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-23 (1972). As grounds for setting aside the will, the complaint asserted: (1) testamentary…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.