Estate of Hardy v. Seay
| Docket Number: | 2000-CA-01558-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-04-2005 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Rendered in Part. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Delivery of deed - Power of attorney Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Easley and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-24-2000 Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court Judge: Dennis M. Baker Disposition: chancellor dismissed their motion to set aside the four deeds purporting to convey real property situated in Lafayette County, Mississippi Case Number: 94-12-1361 |
|
| Note: | On the sua sponte motion of the Court, the February 14, 2002, mandate issued by this Court is vacated and a new mandate shall be issued in accordance with the new opinion handed down this date. The appellants' motion to clarify is granted. The prior opinion, In re Estate of Hardy, 805 So. 2d 515 (Miss. 2002), is vacated and withdrawn, and this opinion (handed down this date) is substituted therefor. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In the Matter of the Estate of Martha R. Seay Hardy: Maynette Seay, Annette Seay Hines and Elizabeth Seay Self |
JERRY P. ‘JAY’ HUGHES, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | James Seay | KENNETH E. STOCKTON |
|
|
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: | Real property - Delivery of deed - Power of attorney |
| Summary of the Facts: | The prior opinion, In re Estate of Hardy, 805 So. 2d 515 (Miss. 2002), is vacated and withdrawn, and this opinion is substituted for it. Martha Seay Hardy died on April 19, 1994, leaving four children, Appellants Elizabeth Seay Self, Martha Seay Hines and Maynette Seay and Appellee James Seay. Mrs. Hardy's Last Will and Testament, which named James as executor of her estate, was duly probated in DeSoto County. Over three years later, the sisters filed a petition seeking removal of James as executor and an accounting. A few months later the sisters filed a motion to declare void four warranty deeds which transferred two tracts of real property in Lafayette County to the four children, giving each sister an undivided 1/3 interest in the first tract and giving James all of the second tract. These deeds were executed by Mrs. Hardy, but never filed or recorded. The chancellor held that the sisters' action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The sisters appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Delivery Delivery and acceptance are essential to a deed's validity. If a grantor retains a deed and keeps it in his possession and control until his death and there is no indication that he intended to deliver the deed, it is void for want of delivery. The intent to deliver a deed must be mutual with the intent to accept the deed in order for delivery and acceptance to be complete. There is no proof in the record that the deeds giving the sisters an interest in the first tract were ever delivered to or accepted by the sisters. Finding the deeds in Mrs. Hardy's purse after her death does not constitute delivery or acceptance. Therefore, the deeds are merely instruments without effect or meaning. James testified at the hearing that Mrs. Hardy delivered the other deed to him at a Piccadilly cafeteria, so, for argument's sake, it is assumed that the deed had a valid delivery and acceptance. Issue 2: Power of attorney Each of the four children executed powers of attorney in favor of Mrs. Hardy "for the purposes of facilitating the management of the land owned by the family and for the transaction of general business." These powers of attorneys vested Mrs. Hardy "with broad powers to dispose of the property" and were filed of record in the Office of the Chancery Clerk of Lafayette County. A general power of attorney authorizing an agent to sell and convey property implies a sale for the benefit of the principal. Mrs. Hardy's conveyance of the sisters' 3/5 interest in the second tract to James could not work to the benefit of the sisters in any way. Their 3/5 interest was taken away from them without their receipt of anything in return. Therefore, Mrs. Hardy's conveyance of sisters' 3/5 interest in the property to James was not authorized under the power of attorney. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
