Smith v. Bell
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-02020-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-29-2004 Opinion Author: Thomas, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Heirship determination - Presumption of legitimacy Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Lee, J. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-12-2002 Appealed from: Bolivar County Chancery Court Judge: William Willard Disposition: FRANCIS BELL, III ADJUDICATED TO BE AN HEIR AT LAW OF THE DECEASED, FRANCIS BELL, JR. Case Number: 2001-0387 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Linda Ann Bell Smith |
PRO SE
JEFFREY A. LEVINGSTON |
||
| Appellee: | Francis Bell, III | ROBERT G. JOHNSTON |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Wills & estates - Heirship determination - Presumption of legitimacy |
| Summary of the Facts: | Francis Bell, III filed a complaint to determine heirship against Linda Ann Bell Smith and Fragapani Bell. The court adjudicated Francis Bell, III to be an heir at law of the deceased, Francis Bell, Jr. Linda Bell Smith appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Smith argues that the court erred in ruling that Francis Bell, III is the biological child of Francis Bell, Jr, and that an erroneous evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence was applied rather than determining the case by applying the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a rebuttable presumption of the legitimacy of a child born during the course of a marriage. There was therefore a strong, but rebuttable, presumption that James Ross was the biological father of Francis Bell, III. A party challenging legitimacy may prevail if he proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the legal husband of the mother is not, in fact, the biological father. Proof that Francis Bell, III was the biological son of Francis Bell, Jr. would be substantial proof that he was not the biological son of James Ross, and should be considered in deciding whether the presumption has been rebutted. The evidence consisted of testimony by Francis Bell, III; his mother Lilly Moore, who stated unequivocally that Francis Bell, Jr. was the father of Francis Bell, III; testimony of two sisters of Francis Bell, Jr.; and school and military records that listed Francis Bell, Jr. as his father and bore the name "Francis Bell, III." Francis Bell, Jr.'s obituary was also introduced into evidence which listed Francis Bell, III as a survivor. This provides a substantial basis upon which the chancellor could have based his decision. In addition, the chancellor used the correct standard of clear and convincing evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
