Armstrong v. Estate of Thames, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-00446-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-05-2007 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Conservatorship - Notice of petition - Section 93-13-253 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-07-2005 Appealed from: Lawrence County Chancery Court Judge: J. Larry Buffington Disposition: HELD THAT THE CONSERVATORSHIP WAS VALID AND THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY WAS NULL AND VOID. Case Number: 2003-0248 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | LILLIAN ARMSTRONG |
W. TERRELL STUBBS |
||
| Appellee: | THE ESTATE OF LEWIS BENSON THAMES A/K/A LOUIS BENSON THAMES, GEORGE ROBERTS, EXECUTOR | JOE DALE WALKER |
|
|
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 - Conservatorship - Notice of petition - Section 93-13-253 |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 1998, the Lawrence County Chancery Court appointed George Roberts as conservator of the person and estate of Lewis Thames. In 1999, Thames, who was living in a veteran’s home, executed a quitclaim deed conveying certain real property to his sister, Lillian Armstrong. When Thames passed away, Roberts was appointed executor of the estate. Roberts filed a complaint as executor of the estate, to set aside the deed from Thames to Armstrong. Armstrong alleged that the conservatorship was invalid. The chancellor found that the conservatorship was valid, and that the deed from Thames to Armstrong was invalid. Armstrong appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Armstrong argues that the conservatorship was invalid because process was never served on a relative of the ward as required by statute. The clear meaning of section 93-13-253 is to ensure that the person for whom a conservator is to be appointed and one relative receive notice of the petition to appoint a conservator. The exception is that the person for whom a conservator is to be appointed does not need notice served when that person signed the petition. The intention of the statute is that two people receive notice of a petition for a conservatorship. In the present case, the chancellor concluded that section 93-13-253 does not require service of process on any person when a petitioner is the person for whom a conservator will be appointed. The very purpose of appointing a conservator is to protect a person who may not be competent to make decisions with substantial legal consequences. It is unreasonable that the legislature intended that a person in need of a conservatorship due to mental incompetency should waive the statutorily-mandated service of process on a relative by signing the petition to establish the conservatorship. The statutory interpretation of the chancellor was error. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
