A Mississippi Court of Appeals decision in a recent case illustrates what happens when personal conviction meets the weight of evidentiary rules.[1] The case had voluminous testimony and detail, yet it closes with a simple conclusion. No matter how genuine the belief that a later Will existed, Mississippi law demands clear proof that the document was executed, that its contents were certain, and that it was not revoked.[2] Absent that proof, even a compelling story cannot overcome an older, properly executed instrument.
Background
Patricia Fleishhacker died in 2021 at her home near Tupelo, Mississippi. Her 2005 Will, a two-page typed document witnessed by two people, left her entire estate to her sister, Cindy Edwards. That Will was discovered in a home safe shortly after her death.[3]
Her daughter, Gina Ward[4], claimed that years later Patricia had handwritten a new Will in 2018, leaving the estate to Gina instead. Gina said she saw this handwritten document many times on Patricia’s kitchen table, written in red ink, signed, and titled “Last Will and Testament of Patricia A. Fleishhacker.” But after Patricia’s death, the document was nowhere to be found.
The Lee County Chancery Court heard a mountain of testimony. Gina described the 2018 document in detail and said she had watched Patricia write it. Her adoptive father, her former boyfriend, and others said they had seen the document or heard Patricia mention it. The evidence was substantial, but the proof was not. The Chancery Court ultimately ruled that Gina had failed to establish the Will’s execution or contents by clear and convincing evidence and that the law presumed the document, if it once existed, had been revoked. The Court of Appeals affirmed in November 2025.
A Case Heavy on Evidence but Light on Proof
The record in Fleishhacker was enormous. It included testimony from more than half a dozen witnesses, depositions, photographs, and detailed factual findings. Many of the depositions were discussed individually in the Court’s opinion. Yet the decision turned not on how much evidence there was, but on what kind of evidence it was.
Under Mississippi law, a lost Will can be admitted to probate only if the proponent proves by clear and convincing evidence that the Will existed and was properly executed, that it was lost or destroyed, what its contents were, and that it was not revoked.[5] Each element stands on its own. Failure to prove even one is fatal. Gina met only the easiest one: that the Will was lost.[6]
Where the Case Broke Down
Execution
A holographic Will is valid in Mississippi only if it is entirely written in the testator’s own handwriting and subscribed by the testator (signed at the end).[7] This rule is not ceremonial. It protects against fraud and mistake. Further, similar to non-holographic Wills, such may be proven by affidavits of two disinterested persons who are familiar with the decedent’s handwriting, provided the Will is not being contested.[8]
The problem for Gina was that none of her witnesses could say with certainty that the 2018 holographic Will met each of those requirements. Gina herself was an interested party. Her former boyfriend said he saw the Will once and assumed Patricia wrote it. Her adoptive father said he read it but could not remember where Patricia’s signature appeared. No handwriting expert or disinterested witness verified the writing. Without solid proof that the document was entirely in Patricia’s handwriting and signed at the end, the first requirement failed. This singular failure would itself render a fatal blow to Gina’s case.
Contents
Even if a lost Will existed, a court cannot merely just guess as to what it said. The contents must be proven clearly and consistently. In Fleishhacker, witnesses (again, there were several) gave different accounts. Some remembered a charitable bequest to the local humane society, but the amounts varied. Others recalled a ring for a friend, but not everyone agreed that provision existed. The chancellor found the testimony too inconsistent and speculative to reconstruct the document’s contents. The Court agreed.
Revocation
The most decisive issue was the presumption of revocation. When a Will last known to be in the testator’s possession cannot be found at death, the law presumes the testator destroyed it with intent to revoke it.[9] That presumption can be rebutted, but only with evidence showing that someone else had access to it and destroyed it without the testator’s knowledge. Gina argued that Cindy, who still had a key to Patricia’s house, could have entered and taken the document. But there was no credible evidence that Cindy ever did.
The house appeared undisturbed when Gina first entered it. The 2005 Will was sitting untouched in the home safe. The Court concluded that the presumption of revocation had not been rebutted and that Patricia’s failure to preserve the 2018 document likely reflected an intent to revoke it.
The Technical Missteps
Beyond the substantive weaknesses, Gina’s case stumbled over several procedural and evidentiary missteps. She relied heavily on her own testimony and those of family members rather than neutral witnesses. She presented no copy or photograph of the alleged holographic Will. Her timeline of events did not always match those of others. And she offered no proof that the document had ever been kept anywhere other than Patricia’s home.
These may seem like small flaws, but in a Will contest they can quickly become fatal. Memories and assumptions, no matter how honest, will likely not meet that standard.
The Court’s Ruling and Its Broader Meaning
The Court affirmed the Chancery Court’s decision, concluding that the 2005 Will controlled and that the alleged 2018 holographic Will had not been proven. The Court noted that while Mississippi’s old Dead Man’s Statute[10] no longer bars an interested party from testifying, that testimony must still withstand the clear and convincing standard.
The ruling reinforces the presumption that if a Will is missing, and the last known copy was in the testator’s possession, the testator revoked it. Unless the proponent can produce evidence strong enough to overcome that presumption, the earlier valid Will remains the governing instrument.
What the Case Teaches
For estate planners, fiduciaries, and litigators, Fleishhacker is a practical reminder that intent without formality is virtually meaningless in court. Clients can often assume that a handwritten note, letter, or personal declaration will serve as a valid Will. This case shows why that assumption is dangerous. Unless the document meets every statutory requirement and is safely preserved, it will almost certainly fail.
For lawyers, the takeaway is simple. If a client insists on writing a holographic Will, make sure it is entirely in the client’s handwriting, signed clearly at the end, and stored securely. Better yet, have the client execute a formal, witnessed Will, and revoke any earlier documents explicitly. An attested Will avoids the ambiguity and emotional strain that cases like Fleishhacker inevitably produce.
Conclusion
Fleishhacker is not a story of deceit or malice. It is a story of how the law values formality and certainty above memory and intent. Patricia’s 2005 Will survived because it met every statutory requirement and was preserved. Conversely, the alleged 2018 handwritten Will did not.
In the end, the Court’s ruling is not harsh. It is consistent. The relevant law exists to protect finality and prevent this type of confusion. The lesson and reminder from this case is that a person’s wishes matter only if they are properly executed, documented, and preserved. Everything else is just conversation.
[1] Matter of Est. of Fleishhacker v. Edwards, No. 2024-CA-00418-COA, 2025 WL 3077507 (Miss. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2025).
[2] Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Cotten, 420 So. 2d 242, 245 (Miss. 1982) (citing Veazey v. Turnipseed, 69 So. 2d 379, 382 (Miss. 1954)).
[3] Sadly, Ms. Fleishhacker was found at her home almost two weeks following her passing.
[4] Ms. Fleishhacker gave birth to Gina when she was just 17 years of age. Gina was raised separately in Kansas by adoptive parents, reuniting with her biological mother after approximately 18 years.
[5] See Veazey v. Turnipseed, 69 So. 2d 379, 382 (Miss. 1954); Easley v. Ferguson (In re Est. of Cannon), 733 So. 2d 245,249 (Miss. 1999) (citing Robert A. Weems, Wills and Administration of Estates in Mississippi § 7:17 (1st ed. 1988)).
[6] The Court noted specifically that merely showing the requirements as being met, individually, the weight of the evidence must meet the ultimate evidentiary burden, which the Court found unnecessary to review.
[7] Miss. Code Ann. § 91-5-1.
[8] Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-10 to -11.
[9] See Cannon, 733 So. 2d at 249.
[10] Historically, Miss. Code Ann. § 13-1-7 (repealed in 1991).
