McWilliams v. McWilliams
| Docket Number: | 2007-CP-01029-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CP-01029-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-22-2008 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Jurisdiction - Judicial notice - M.R.E. 201(e) - Removal as trustee Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-17-2007 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: APPELLANT REMOVED AS TRUSTEE OF TRUST Case Number: 2005-0302 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JOHN H. MCWILLIAMS |
JOHN H. MCWILLIAMS (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | D. RIALS MCWILLIAMS, BY AND THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, JANE WEATHERSBY, AND FRANK L. MCWILLIAMS | LINDSEY C. MEADOR, HOLLIE R. MOORE |
|
|
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 - Jurisdiction - Judicial notice - M.R.E. 201(e) - Removal as trustee |
| Summary of the Facts: | This is the second appeal concerning a warranty deed and an irrevocable trust settled by Frank McWilliams, an attorney, while he was incarcerated for burglary. Frank named his son, D. Rials McWilliams, as the beneficiary of that trust. Frank’s brother, attorney John McWilliams, drafted the trust. Frank appointed John as the sole trustee. More than six years later, Frank filed a motion to set the trust aside. The chancery court found that Frank’s complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. Frank appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. While the appeal was pending, Rials, by and through his mother, Jane Weathersby, filed a petition to remove John as the trustee. The chancellor removed John as the trustee, and John appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction John argues that the chancellor had no jurisdiction to remove him as the trustee, because Frank had appealed the chancellor’s decision to grant Rials’s motion for summary judgment and that appeal was pending. Once a matter has been appealed, the lower court has no authority to broaden, amend, modify, vacate, clarify, or rehear its prior decision. Here, the chancellor did not broaden, amend, modify, or reconsider his judgment that Frank was time-barred when he removed John as the trustee. The sole issue within Frank’s appeal was whether Frank’s motion to set aside the trust was barred by the statute of limitations. Whether John should remain as the trustee was not at issue during that appeal. Thus, the chancery court maintained jurisdiction over the general operation of the trust. Issue 2: Judicial notice John argues that the chancellor erred when he took judicial notice that he took a position adverse to Rials during the hearing on Rials’s motion for summary judgment regarding Frank’s motion to set aside the trust. M.R.E. 201(e) expressly provided John with a mechanism to challenge the chancellor’s decision to take judicial notice of John’s adverse position. The record contains no indication that John requested to be heard regarding the chancellor’s taking judicial notice. Therefore, this issue is procedurally barred on appeal. In addition, advance notice that judicial notice will be taken is not required. Issue 3: Removal as trustee John argues that the chancellor committed reversible error when he removed him as the trustee. Upon an affirmative finding that a beneficiary established the allegations based on a petition for removal, a chancellor has the authority to remove a trustee for good cause. In this case, the chancellor specifically stated that he removed John to prevent further conflicts of interest. If a trustee has an interest in the administration of a trust that would interfere with the duty of complete loyalty, removal may be warranted. Where a trustee fails or refuses to defend a claim that would harm a trust estate, removal may also be warranted. John’s conflict of interest was evident due to certain events that transpired when John and his siblings distributed certain property from their mother’s estate. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
