In re the Last Will and Testament of Wilcher
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01133-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01133-COA ; 2006-CT-01133-SCT ; 2006-CT-01133-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-13-2007 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Innocent purchasers - Refund of purchase price Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-08-2006 Appealed from: Leake County Chancery Court Judge: William Joseph Lutz Disposition: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE. Case Number: 2003-0047 |
|
| Note: | This opinion was later reversed by the Supreme Court on 11/6/2008 and remanded back to the trial court. To view the SCT opinion, see: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO52301.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | IN THE MATTER OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF MAZIE WILCHER, DECEASED: LONNIE FAULKNER, ZACHARY FAULKNER AND BENJAMIN FAULKNER |
SAMUEL S. GOZA
ROBERT L. GOZA |
||
| Appellee: | THOMAS KARL WILCHER, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF MAZIE WILCHER, DECEASED, AND CONNIE WILCHER | ALAN D. RHEA DEXTER C. NETTLES |
|
|
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: | Real property - Innocent purchasers - Refund of purchase price |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mazie Wilcher died testate in 1991, leaving as part of her estate a twelve-acre plot of real property, subject to a life estate in favor of Connie Wilcher, with the remainder devised to Thomas Karl Wilcher. Although Mazie Wilcher died testate, her will was not submitted for probate until 2003. Before the will was submitted for probate, however, Mazzie Wilcher’s daughter, Connie Wilcher, conveyed by deed the real property to the Faulkners, her blood relatives, subject to her life estate. The Faulkners took title to the real property, without a title examination, and allegedly unaware of the unprobated will of Mazie Wilcher. Sometime later in that month, Thomas Karl Wilcher became aware of the land deed transfer and objected. As a result, the Faulkners reconveyed the property to Connie Wilcher. However, shortly thereafter, Connie Wilcher again conveyed the land to the Faulkners. Thomas Karl Wilcher finally filed Mazie Wilcher’s will for probate and was appointed executor of the Estate. Upon the filing of the will, it was also determined that Thomas Karl Wilcher was named trustee of the property and given the absolute authority to sell, lease or assign Connie Wilcher’s interest. Thomas Karl Wilcher sought to set aside and cancel the deed transfer to the Faulkners. The chancery court granted Thomas Karl Wilcher’s request, and granted summary judgment in favor of him and the Estate. The Faulkners were not returned their purchase price of $10,799. The Faulkners appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Innocent purchasers The Faulkners argue that they were innocent purchasers because they were not aware that Mazie Wilcher had a will at her death and that as innocent, bona fide purchasers of the property, they are protected against having the deed set aside. A purchaser of land has the duty to examine all deeds and conveyances previously executed and placed of record by his grantor--either immediately or remote--if such deeds or conveyances in any way affect his title. The chancellor found that the Faulkners were on notice of the possibility of a break in the chain of title due to the statement appearing in the deed noticing that the instrument was prepared without title examination. The Faulkners argue that the Wilchers knowingly withheld Mazie Wilcher’s will from probate and wilfully concealed its existence, thereby fostering the Faulkner’s reasonable reliance on the fact that the property was marketable before its transfer. Ordinarily, the Faulkners’ belief and reliance on Connie Wilcher’s implicit representation that she owned the subject property before the conveyance would qualify for the defense of laches or equitable estoppel. However, the Faulkners were charged with the duty to investigate the title to the property before purchasing the realty and the failure to ensure the property’s marketability is fatal to the Faulkners’ claim. Issue 2: Refund of purchase price Within the order of the chancellor, no mention is given to the return of the purchase price. On appeal, the Faulkners seek a refund of their purchase price, arguing that the failure to return the purchase price results in unjust enrichment. The issue of the return of the purchase price was never brought before or adjudicated in the lower court. Therefore, review is barred. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
