In re Allen
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-00537-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-14-2007 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Conveyances - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-37 - Section 93-13-51 - Full accounting - Repayment of funds - Attorney’s mistakes Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-01-2006 Appealed from: Lafayette County Chancery Court Judge: Glenn Alderson Disposition: CHANCELLOR ORDERED RUSSELL TO PAY TO ADMINISTRATRIX OF ALLEN’S ESTATE CERTAIN SUMS WHICH SHE PREVIOUSLY EXPENDED FROM THE ESTATE OR WERE PROPERTY OF THE WARD. Case Number: 1992-191(A) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | IN THE MATTER OF ADRON ALLEN: BETTY RUSSELL |
OMAR D. CRAIG |
||
| Appellee: | JAMES BRUCE ALLEN, ROBERT LEE ALLEN, RONDA NAIL, FONDA KANNADA, BRADLEY HOWARD ALLEN AND CORY SCOTT ALLEN | CARTER C. HITT JERRY P. "JAY" HUGHES |
|
|
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 - Conveyances - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-37 - Section 93-13-51 - Full accounting - Repayment of funds - Attorney’s mistakes |
| Summary of the Facts: | Betty Russell filed a petition for conservatorship for her father, Adron Allen. Allen was served with a summons for the conservatorship, but no other relative of Allen’s was given notice or served. Russell did not contact her deceased brother’s widow or any of his six children. The chancery court appointed Russell conservatrix of Allen. At the time of this appointment, Allen’s real property assets consisted of two tracts of rolling hills in Lafayette County. One tract held 18.5 acres and the other 79 acres. Two years later, Russell filed a petition with the chancery court to sell Allen’s 18.5 acre tract to herself. No summons or notice of the land sale was issued to any of Allen’s relatives and the sale was not advertised. The chancery court authorized the sale of the property to Russell for the appraised value of $8,973. A few years later, Russell sold timber from the land for $14,000. A few years later, Russell filed another petition for authority to sell Allen’s remaining tract of 79 acres to herself. Again, no summons or notice was issued to any of Allen’s relatives and the sale was not advertised. The court approved the sale of 79 acres to Russell for the appraised value of $17,816. After Allen died, his six grandchildren learned of the sales and filed a petition to set aside the deeds. The petition sought to set aside the decrees authorizing and approving both land sales to Russell. A new chancellor held that the conservatorship was invalid because the proper parties were not served with notice, as prescribed by statute. The court also set aside the two deeds conveying property from Allen’s conservatorship estate to Russell because notice was not given to the required number of Allen’s kin. The court held that the title to both properties was vested in Allen’s estate. The $14,000 realized from the sale of timber on the 18.5 acre tract was also put back into Allen’s estate. The court issued an order finding that Russell owed Allen’s estate $30,032.29 because she failed to justify certain expenses she claimed were for Allen’s benefit. However, Russell was entitled to offset that payment by $28,984.78 for the purchase of the two tracts of Allen’s land and taxes paid on the land while it was in her possession. The net difference between the amounts Russell was ordered to pay the estate and the credits to which she was entitled was $1,047.51. Russell appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Conveyances Russell argues that the chancellor erred in setting aside the two conveyances of real property made during the conservatorship. She argues that section 15-1-37, a statute of limitations to recover property sold by order of a chancery court, applies. Without question, the petition to set aside the deeds falls outside of the statute of limitations. However, both the conservatorship and the subsequent land sales were correctly deemed invalid by the lower court because procedural requirements were not met. Accordingly, the statute of limitations does not apply. Notice was not served upon the required number of kin for the establishment of Allen’s conservatorship, as required by section 93-13-51. A ward’s property can be validly disposed of only in conformity with statutory provisions. Russell admits that she did not serve any of Allen’s relatives. There can be no application of the statute of limitations when the grandchildren were not aware that the sale had taken place and the decrees purportedly authorizing the conveyance of real property were not made in conformity with law. Issue 2: Full accounting Russell argues that the chancery court erred by ordering a full accounting of expenditures made during the conservatorship, because they had previously been approved by another chancellor. In an attempt to determine the status of the conservatorship account, the court required Russell to provide adequate information regarding the expenditures she claimed were made on behalf of Allen. Neither the statute of limitations nor res judicata apply to this order as it is not challenging the prior court’s approval. Rather, the chancellor in the present case sought additional information to determine the status of Allen’s holdings. The chancery court was within its discretion to order a full accounting when it appeared that Russell’s records for the conservatorship were incomplete. As conservatrix, Russell owed a fiduciary duty to Allen. Because a fiduciary owes such a duty to the ward, Mississippi law provides a chancellor with broad equitable powers to hold a fiduciary fully accountable for the property with which the fiduciary has been entrusted. Issue 3: Repayment of funds The lower court ordered Russell to repay certain funds to Allen’s estate, but offset those charges with certain credits. Russell argues that her testimony is sufficient to prove that she used the funds on Allen’s behalf. The court ordered Russell to repay $9,107.59 to Allen’s estate for the sale of cattle owned by Allen prior to the establishment of the conservatorship. The lower court noted in its bench ruling that the check for $9,107.59 was made payable to Russell, and that Russell did not have an explanation for what happened to the money. The proof required of a conservator’s actions is within a chancellor’s discretion. The lower court assessed Russell with the sum of $390 for drawing three separate checks on the conservatorship account made payable to “cash,” $100 for another check, and $200 for a check Russell claims she used to repair her mother’s gravesite. However, Russell could not provide the additional evidence required by the chancellor to support these claims. There was no error in the chancellor’s requirement of proof and subsequent order for Russell to repay these funds to Allen’s estate. With regard to the timber proceeds, Russell argues that she should not have to repay Allen’s estate the $14,000, because she should not be held personally liable for mistakes her attorney and the original presiding judge made. Because the land sales failed the procedural requirement for notice, the sale was invalid. As such, Russell did not have legal title to the land and could not legally benefit from any profit made from that land. Issue 4: Attorney’s mistakes Russell argues that she was improperly held liable for mistakes made by her original attorney and the original presiding chancellor. Upon a thorough review of the record, it is clear that the chancellor sought an equitable result for the parties involved. The chancellor was very careful in making his assessment of the accountings for Allen’s estate and the expenditures made therein. His decision does not contradict the evidence or testimony provided. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
