Williams v. Williams
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00551-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-00551-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-27-2010 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Precatory clause - Attorney's fees - M.R.C.P. 37(b) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-10-2009 Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court Judge: Vicki Cobb Disposition: PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE Case Number: 05-04-0670 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Tracy Franklin Williams |
EDUARDO ALBERTO FLECHAS |
|
|
| Appellee: | Lawrence Daniel Williams | GARY P. SNYDER, LAURA L. GIBBES | ||
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 - Precatory clause - Attorney's fees - M.R.C.P. 37(b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tracy Williams contested the probate of his mother’s estate and alleged that Lawrence Williams, the executor of the estate, had mismanaged estate funds. The chancery court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Lawrence. Furthermore, Tracy failed to comply with discovery requests, so the chancery court later dismissed Tracy’s remaining claims and granted Lawrence’s request for attorneys’ fees. Tracy appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Partial summary judgment Tracy argues that the chancery court erred by finding that Article III of the will was merely a precatory statement of Mrs. Williams’ desire and that the chancery court should have considered extrinsic evidence to determine Mrs. Williams’ intent. Article III of Mrs. Williams’ will provided that “It is my desire that Kate Ida Williams be taken care of as I did during my lifetime.” If the language of the will is clear, definite, and unambiguous, the court must give to the language its clear import. Here, Mrs. Williams’ will was not ambiguous. She clearly stated in Article II that all of her property should be divided equally amongst her three children – Lawrence, Tracy, and Jermyn. Thus, the devise in Article II cannot be taken away by Mrs. Williams’ desire expressed in Article III of the will. Article III does not (1) state that a trust account should be established for Kate, (2) set aside a specific sum of money for Kate’s care, and (3) order the estate to pay Kate’s tuition. Instead, Article III merely expressed Mrs. Williams’s hope that “[Kate] be taken care of.” Article III is merely precatory and, thus, unenforceable. Issue 2: Attorney’s fees Tracy failed to object to the order awarding attorneys’ fees. Thus, his argument concerning attorney’s fees is procedurally barred from review. In addition, the chancery court did not err by imposing sanctions against Tracy. If the party at fault fails to comply with the chancery court’s order, it is considered contempt of court, and the chancery court may impose sanctions under M.R.C.P. 37(b), which includes dismissal of the case and the payment of reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tracy failed to comply with the chancery court’s order compelling discovery without offering any explanation for such failure. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
