Johnson v. Herron


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CA-01418-COA
Linked Case(s): 2008-CT-01418-SCT ; 2008-CA-01418-COA
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-27-2009
Opinion Author: IRVING, J.
Holding: AFFIRMED
Additional Case Information: Topic: Wills & estates - Judicial estoppel - Duties of administrator - Section 91-7-47(1)
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-10-2008
Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court
Judge: Mitchell M. Lundy, Jr.
Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED
Case Number: 05-04-587(ML)
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: ORVILLE LEE JOHNSON




 SHERRY P. THOMPSON, JAMES W. AMOS, DAN V. LITTLE



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: RITA FRANCES BURFORD HERRON, JOHN CAL BURFORD JR., AND PATRICIA A. GRANTHAM JOHN T. LAMAR JR., DAVID M. SLOCUM JR.  
    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 - Judicial estoppel - Duties of administrator - Section 91-7-47(1)
    Summary of the Facts: Orville Lee Johnson filed a complaint against Rita Frances Burford Herron, John Cal Burford Jr., and Patricia Grantham. Burford filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that judicial and equitable estoppel barred Johnson’s claims for relief. The chancery court granted the motion. Johnson appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Johnson and Herron were appointed as coadministrators of Chester Johnson’s estate. Chester was Orville Johnson's father. Herron, Johnson, and Burford entered into a settlement greement to close Chester’s estate in which Chester's assets were divided as: 60% to O.L. Johnson; 20% to Rita B. Herron; and 20% to John Cal Burford, Jr. Chester’s estate was closed and its assets were distributed according to the terms of the settlement agreement. At some point after the closing of Chester’s estate, his last will was discovered, wherein Johnson was intended to receive half of his estate, while Herron and Burford were entitled to the other half of the estate. Almost three years later, Johnson filed the complaint in this case. Because of judicial estoppel, a party cannot assume a position at one stage of a proceeding and then take a contrary stand later in the same litigation. Johnson cannot now take a position that is opposed to his previous position, which was to his benefit at the time. The record shows that Johnson was aware of the properties in DeSoto County and Tate County when he agreed to close his father’s estate, as shown by his inquiries about the properties, which he testified began in the late 1970s. The settlement agreement asserted that all of the assets of the estate had been determined and disbursed. Although the settlement agreement only referred to the then-known assets of the estate, the petition joined by Johnson over a year later affirmatively stated that it was for “all assets of the estate.” A reasonable assumption is that Johnson still had questions about other property when he entered into the settlement agreement, and that he then researched those questions over the course of the next year prior to signing the petition to close the estate. Furthermore, as the chancery court noted, all of the disputed deeds had been recorded years prior to this litigation. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Burford or Herron attempted to keep the deed hidden from Johnson or otherwise interfered with his inheritance. Under the terms of the agreement reached in the estate closing, Johnson received sixty percent of the estate’s assets, while Burford and Herron split forty percent of the estate between themselves. The will that was later discovered, and that would have presumably been probated had it been discovered in time, granted Johnson only fifty percent of his father’s estate. Clearly, Johnson benefitted from the closing that was negotiated for the estate. Johnson cannot now ask the chancery court to undo the settlement agreement simply because it would be more profitable for him to do so. Both Johnson and Herron acted as coadministrators of Chester’s estate. Pursuant to section 91-7-47(1), Johnson had a duty to discover all of the assets of his father’s estate before he agreed to close the estate. The record is clear that Johnson was aware of the existence of additional real property. Despite his awareness of the properties, Johnson did nothing to include these properties as assets when his father’s estate was closed. In fact, he asserted to the chancery court in his petition to close his father’s estate that “all” assets of the estate were ready for distribution. He cannot now try to undo that averment to the court.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court