Harris v. Waters
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-02052-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-27-2010 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Dismissed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Interlocutory appeal - M.R.C.P. 54(b) - M.R.A.P. 5 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-04-2008 Appealed from: Covington County Chancery Court Judge: J. Larry Buffington Disposition: ENTERED AN AMENDED JUDGMENT EIGHT MONTHS AFTER HANDING DOWN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT Case Number: 02-215 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Barbara Waters Harris, Executrix of the Estate of J.T. Waters, Deceased |
DAVID SHOEMAKE |
||
| Appellee: | Larry Waters, Keith Waters, Tim Waters, John Waters and Brenda Adams | ORVIS A. SHIYOU, 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 - Interlocutory appeal - M.R.C.P. 54(b) - M.R.A.P. 5 |
| Summary of the Facts: | J.T. Waters died leaving a will. His wife, Barbara Waters Harris, and four children survived him. Harris served as executrix and filed a first and final account along with a petition to close the estate. The Waters heirs challenged many of the items detailed in the account. The chancellor entered a judgment, and Harris appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | M.R.C.P. 54(b) allows the trial court to direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties in an action. But the trial court may do so only upon an expressed determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an expressed direction for the entry of the judgment. Absent a Rule 54(b) certification, any judgment – regardless of how designated – is not final if it adjudicates fewer than all of the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties. In this case, the will leaves multiple specific legacies to Harris. These include cattle, farm equipment, home furnishings and appliances. In Harris’s final account, she requested authority to convey this property to herself. In the chancellor’s judgment, he only addressed the cattle. It is apparent the parties agreed Harris was entitled to inherit all cattle, farm equipment, home furnishings and appliances. Yet the chancellor concluded, without explanation, that the estate owned a one-half interest in the cattle. The chancellor neither approved nor rejected Harris’s request in her final accounting to convey the farm equipment, household furnishings and appliances to herself as directed by the will. By not addressing these matters, the chancellor left no legal finality as to the proper distribution of this property. The chancellor also did not address all of the administration expenses Harris requested. The chancellor reserved ruling on certain contested expenses, but it appears he never revisited this issue. The chancellor also did not confront the disputed matter of the statutory allowance under section 91-7-135 for one year’s support. Since no Rule 54(b) certification appears in the record, the chancellor’s order is interlocutory. For an interlocutory order to be appealable, the supreme court must grant leave to proceed with the appeal under M.R.A.P. 5. Since the supreme court did not grant permission to appeal from this judgment – nor was it sought – the Court is without jurisdiction over this matter. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
