Estate of Carter v. Shackelford
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-01534-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-06-2005 Opinion Author: Carlson, George C. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Jurisdiction - Fiduciary relationship - Accounting - Finality of order - M.R.C.P. 60 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley and Randolph, JJ., Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Dickinson, JJ., Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J., Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-18-2004 Appealed from: TIPPAH COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Edwin Hayes Roberts, Jr. Disposition: Tippah County Chancery Court’s entry of a judgment finding that due to maladministration, fraud and contempt, Mary Helen Robbins Frazier, the executrix of the Estate of Grace Carter, should be removed and held accountable for the sum of $297,327.05. Case Number: 94-0372-R |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GRACE
CARTER, DECEASED: MARY HELEN ROBBINS
FRAZIER, EXECUTRIX |
B. SEAN AKINS |
||
| Appellee: | DANIEL SHACKELFORD, MISSISSIPPI BAPTIST FOUNDATION, MISSISSIPPI BAPTIST CHILDREN’S VILLAGE AND BLUE MOUNTAIN COLLEGE | JENNIFER LEE SHACKELFORD, LEONARD D. VAN SLYKE, JR., RUSTY ALAN FLEMING |
|
|
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 - Fiduciary relationship - Accounting - Finality of order - M.R.C.P. 60 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Grace Carter’s last will and testament devised a large number of U.S. Series E Bonds and specifically designated them according to their serial number to various charitable organizations. In 1985, Mary Helen Robbins Frazier, Carter’s niece, received from Carter a power of attorney concerning the affairs of Carter’s estate. In December of 1993 or January of 1994, Carter was admitted to a nursing home facility. Shortly thereafter and up until the time of Carter’s death in November of 1994, Frazier redeemed twenty-three of Carter’s Series E bonds with a face value of $18,500, receiving $100,583 in proceeds from these bonds. Frazier never rendered an accounting for these generated funds, and her actions in prematurely cashing in these bonds caused the estate to incur a sizeable tax of $21,822.40. Subsequent to Carter’s death in November of 1994, Frazier became the court-appointed executrix pursuant to the terms of Carter’s will. Frazier filed a motion requesting the chancery court to close the estate, bar future claims, and discharge her as executrix of Carter’s estate. The chancellor granted the motion and provided that the remaining assets of the estate be disbursed to Carter’s devisees and legatees pursuant to the terms of the Last Will and Testament. 1996, the chancellor released Frazier from the obligation to pay Blue Mountain United Methodist Church, Lowery Memorial Baptist Church, and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Cooperative program based upon Frazier’s representation that all bank and savings accounts had been fully depleted prior to Carter’s death. Additionally, this same order adopted Frazier’s representations regarding amounts owed by the estate to the charities, the executrix, the attorney, the accountant, and a creditor of the estate. In 1999, the Mississippi Baptist Foundation filed a Motion to Reopen the Estate and Provide an Accounting. The chancellor granted the motion and entered an order directing Frazier to file an inventory and a fully substantiated accounting with the chancery court by October 25, 2002. Frazier filed a rudimentary, handscripted accounting which was subsequently adjudged to fall well short of what was statutorily required and to contain several glaring discrepancies. The Mississippi Baptist Foundation, Inc., Blue Mountain College and Mississippi Baptist Children’s Village filed a motion for the executrix to show cause why she should not be required to refund monies to the estate and why she should not be removed as executrix for failure to cooperate with the court. The chancellor entered a judgment which found that Frazier was indebted to the estate in the amount of $321,760.20; that the amount of the indebtedness was subject to reduction if Frazier could justify that she was entitled to credits; that Frazier was removed as the executrix; and, that the Tippah County Chancery Clerk was named as the administrator of Carter’s estate and directed to execute on the judgment entered against Frazier. After Frazier filed a motion for a new trial, the chancellor found Frazier to be in contempt of court due to her having committed fraud and having breached her fiduciary duty to the estate beneficiaries, and, reaffirmed final judgment against Frazier in the amount of $321,760.20. The chancellor later reduced the judgment by the sum of $34,082.49. Frazier appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction Frazier argues that when the chancellor closed the estate in 1996, he released Frazier in her representative capacity, and that when the Mississippi Baptist Foundation filed a motion to re-open the estate in 1999, it should have commenced a civil action by filing a complaint. One serving in the capacity of executor or administrator is an officer of the Court and holds a fiduciary relationship to all parties having an interest in the estate. This case involves a direct fiduciary relationship which was memorialized in 1985 when Carter conferred a power of attorney over her estate to Frazier. At the moment Frazier became Carter’s attorney-in-fact, she was charged with a fiduciary duty to act in good faith and employ such vigilance, sound judgment, diligence and prudence as exercised by general prudent persons of discretion and intelligence in handling their own affairs. Frazier’s argument ignores the continued relationship she had with Carter’s estate, its beneficiaries, and the chancery court, and instead relies on a theory that a formal pleading was required to reestablish her fiduciary duty. It is clear from reading the will that Carter intended all of her assets, except the real estate, to go to charities and not to individuals. Assets specifically designated to charitable organizations which have not been abated should indeed be expected to be paid over to these organizations in their entirety. This duty of administration, which was Frazier’s singular responsibility as executrix of Carter’s estate, was complicated by the fact that she also served as Carter’s attorney-in-fact. It is clear that Frazier abused, or at the very least, wholly neglected her responsibilities in both capacities. Over the course of the litigation in this matter, Frazier has consistently failed to produce any records substantiating the need to sell these bonds. An accounting is an important mechanism for the chancery court to employ in order to monitor the administration of an estate. While an accounting may be waived by a testator, the chancellor, in the interest of equity, has the power to nullify this waiver. Frazier has breached her fiduciary duty of disclosure by fraudulently concealing bond proceeds, having never produced an accounting which lends one iota of documentation as to the whereabouts of such proceeds. Frazier unquestionably failed to complete her duties as an executrix and certainly never complied with her duties as a fiduciary. Given these clear facts, it stands to reason that the chancery court never lost jurisdiction over her. Issue 2: Finality of order Frazier argues that the prior order was final in character and, as such, bound the subsequent chancellor to the court’s prior findings in the absence of an independent action alleging fraud on the court and seeking specific relief pursuant to M.R.C.P. 60. While Rule 60 is indeed the proper means in which to collaterally attack an effective final order, such an order does not exist in this case. In entering the order to close the estate, bar future claims of creditors and discharge the executrix, the former chancellor relied on representations made to him by Frazier and provided the following contingent language in his order: “It further appears to the court that, after the payment of all fees and costs in this cause, the remaining assets of the Estate should be disbursed to the devisees and legatees of the Decedent as directed by her Last Will and Testament.” Elemental to the Mississippi Uniform Chancery Court Rules governing fiduciaries, is the mandate that there be a proper and expedient disposition of estate assets to beneficiaries. In reviewing the perpetuation of this litigation it becomes clear that this case has never been concluded inasmuch as Frazier has never fulfilled her duties as an executrix. Moreover, not only did she fail to distribute the assets of the estate to the devisees and legatees and additionally consume three years before finally completing a simple $5,500 distribution pursuant to the court’s order, she failed to provide evidence of these disbursements and, in the process, concealed the clear intent of the will she was charged with executing. The chancellor unquestionably had the power and authority to examine this estate matter due to the fact that Frazier, in her fiduciary capacity as executor of the estate, never completely fulfilled her duties as prescribed by the chancery court, Mississippi law and Carter’s will. It follows that until the administration of Carter’s estate was completed as instructed by the specific terms of Carter’s will and the orders of the chancery court, the estate was still open, and the chancery court, blessed with great remedial powers in equity, was availed of an opportunity to discover fraud and properly administer the estate. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
