In re Estate of Davis v. O'Neill
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01025-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-19-2010 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Agreed judgment - Duress - M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) - Consideration Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens and Pierce, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, P.J., Concurs in Result Only Without Separate Written Opinion. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-20-2009 Appealed from: STONE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Carter Bise Disposition: The trial court denied an amended motion for relief and to set aside an agreed judgment pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Case Number: 96-0192-4 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | In the Matter of the Estate of John Davis, Deceased, Daniel M. Thompson, Deceased and Louise Thompson, Deceased, Lula Mae Davis, Deceased: Eldon Ladner and Regina Ladner Davenport |
ROBIN L. ROBERTS, JOEL LAVELLE BLACKLEDGE |
|
|
| Appellee: | Alberta L. O'Neill | TADD PARSONS, JACK PARSONS | ||
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 - Agreed judgment - Duress - M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) - Consideration |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eldon Ladner and his daughter Regina Ladner Davenport entered into a substitute agreed judgment signed October 28, 2008, nunc pro tunc to October 14, 2008. Ladner and Davenport alleged that they signed the agreed judgment under duress, coercion, and without free will. Ladner and Davenport had served as conservators and/or administrators to various estates. On or about April 7, 2006, Alberta O’Neill filed a motion to remove Ladner and Davenport as conservators and/or administrators of the Estates. The motion also requested that Ladner and Davenport provide an accounting of assets and reimbursement of funds. On or about September 28, 2006, the chancery court entered an order requiring a detailed accounting. On April 3, 2008, Ladner and Davenport filed an accounting. Before the trial began, the agreed judgment had been signed by Ladner and Davenport, providing for payment and execution of certain documents and other obligations, and was entered by the trial court in October 2008. Thereafter, Ladner and Davenport filed an amended motion for relief from and to set aside judgment pursuant to M.R.C.P. 60(b) in January 2009. The court denied the motion, and they appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Duress Ladner and Davenport seek relief from an agreed judgment under M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6), claiming that they were coerced into signing the agreed judgment under false threats of criminal action and other economic and personal duress. Rule 60 (b)(6) grants relief from a judgment for extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Duress strikes at whether a party actually consented to a contract. A dominant party must conduct himself or herself in a manner that overrides the volition of the weaker party. To this end, a deprivation of a party’s free exercise of his or her own will constitutes duress. But duress cannot be established with mere insistence by one party of a legal right to which the other party yields or claimed when a party makes a lawful demand or exercises or threatens to exercise a legal right. In this case, Davenport testified that she had received the agreed judgment in the mail. A few weeks later, she and her father met at their attorney’s office. Davenport stated that she had felt threatened by potential criminal charges due to discussions with her attorney. According to Davenport, her attorney mentioned attorney general opinions, and he stated that “we didn’t want to go there.” It was Davenport’s understanding that she could face criminal action, loss of her job, and a loss of any political aspirations if she did not sign the agreed judgment. Ladner testified that he signed the agreed judgment sometime after the meeting with Davenport and their attorney, in the presence of Davenport only. Due to Davenport potentially losing her job, going to jail, and other things, Ladner stated that he had felt that he had to sign the agreed judgment. In other words, Ladner and Davenport claim that their own attorney was the dominant party who overpowered their volition, depriving them of the exercise of their own free will. However, an attorney’s advice to his clients is simply that, advice. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the amended motion for relief from and to set aside an agreed judgment. Issue 2: Consideration Ladner and Davenport argue that the agreed judgment is void for lack of consideration. Generally, an enforceable contract consists of an offer, an acceptance of that offer, and consideration. Consideration has been defined as an act other than a promise, or a forbearance, or the creation, modification or destruction of a legal relation, or a return promise, bargained for and given in exchange for the promise. By the terms of the agreed judgment, both parties gave adequate consideration to forego further litigation. The agreed judgment provided for a release by the Estates, O’Neill, and Edward Ladner against any claims they had against Ladner, Davenport, and Ladner’s family, and a release from any future claims. Likewise, Ladner and Davenport released all claims against the Estates, O’Neill, and Edward Ladner. The terms also provided a bar to any action brought by any opposing parties. Furthermore, the agreed judgment met all the required elements of a contract. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
