Estate of McGee, et al. v. Harveston, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01658-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01658-SCT ; 2006-CA-01658-COA ; 2006-CT-01658-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-16-2007 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Breach of fiduciary duty - Removal of property outside state - Section 91-7-257 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, AND ISHEE, ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): CARLTON, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-18-2006 Appealed from: Adams County Chancery Court Judge: George Ward Disposition: CHANCELLOR ENTERED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES Case Number: 99-752 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF NATHAN MCGEE, DECEASED: FRANCES CAROLYN HARRIS PHILIP, SUSAN CATHERINE HARRIS COUCH, SAMUEL KING HARRIS, DAVID WALTON LONGMIRE, JAMES ALAN LONGMIRE AND ROBERT WILLIAM LONGMIRE |
JOHN W. CHRISTOPHER |
||
| Appellee: | MARGARET MCDANIEL HARVESTON, ADMINISTRATRIX, AND RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, SURETY | RON A. YARBROUGH CLAUDE PINTARD |
|
|
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 - Breach of fiduciary duty - Removal of property outside state - Section 91-7-257 |
| Summary of the Facts: | For many years before his death, Nathan McGee was visually impaired, and he employed Margaret Harveston to read his mail and help him with other paperwork. After McGee’s death, the chancery court appointed Harveston as the administratrix of McGee’s estate. In her initial petition to become administratrix, Harveston estimated the estate to be valued at no more than $80,000, including some stocks or bonds of unknown value. After conducting an inventory of the estate, the total value of McGee’s personal property equaled $2,254,199.84, including stocks valued at $2,191,906.09 that were held in brokerage accounts in New Orleans and Baton Rouge. The chancellor granted Harveston’s petition to transfer the stocks held in New Orleans and Baton Rouge to Edward Jones Investments. Throughout the entire time she served as administratrix, Harveston did not transfer or sell any stock without approval from the court. By August 23, 2003, the adjudication of heirship had concluded and the assets were later distributed to McGee’s heirs at law. In 2004, McGee’s heirs brought an action alleging that Harveston had breached her fiduciary duty by investing estate assets in the stock market. The court entered a judgment in favor of Harveston and her surety, RLI, finding that there was no evidence that Harveston breached her fiduciary duty. The heirs appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The heirs argue that Harveston’s failure to immediately sell McGee’s stock holdings and invest them in more stable securities, such as bonds or mutual funds, was a breach of her duty of care to exercise the judgment of a prudent person under the circumstances. A fiduciary is bound in the management of all the matters of the estate to act in good faith and employ such vigilance, sagacity, diligence and prudence as in general prudent persons of discretion and intelligence in like matters employ in their own affairs. While both parties agreed that the estate lost a considerable amount during Harveston’s tenure as administratrix, important to the chancellor’s decision was the fact that Harveston did not choose to invest in the stock market. There was no evidence presented to show that Harveston breached her fiduciary duty. Her only independent action related to the stock was to petition the court for approval to consolidate the stocks with one broker. She then relied on the advice of professionals hired by the estate and diligently followed their recommendations regarding the management of the stock. Furthermore, administrators are not insurers or guarantors of the estate’s assets. The heirs failed to prove that Harveston’s administration of the estate caused the loss in stock value. The heirs also argue that Harveston failed to marshal the assets of the estate within the state of Mississippi. Section 91-7-257 prohibits an executor from removing property of the estate outside of the state of Mississippi. However, McGee’s stock investments were never held within the state of Mississippi. Thus, the securities had always been held out of state and were never removed from Mississippi. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
