In re Estate of Bellino v. Bellino
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00785-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-02-2010 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Ownership of funds - Judicial estoppel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes and Roberts, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Maxwell, J., concurs in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, 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: 04-10-2009 Appealed from: Forrest County Chancery Court Judge: James H.C. Thomas, Jr. Disposition: STOCK ACCOUNT DECLARED TO BE A JOINT TENANCY WITH RIGHTS OF SURVIVORSHIP Case Number: 04-0482-GN-TH |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | In The Matter of The Estate of Stephen J. Bellino, Deceased: Stephen J. Bellino, II |
SHIRLEE MARIE FAGER-BALDWIN, BRANDON LARUE BROOKS |
|
|
| Appellee: | Margaret Bellino and Ann Porcello, Conservator for and on Behalf of Margaret Bellino | SAMUEL STEVEN MCHARD, GLEN AUSTIN STEWART, GLENN LOUIS WHITE | ||
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 - Ownership of funds - Judicial estoppel |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 2006, Stephen Bellino and Margaret Bellino were divorced. During the marriage, Stephen inherited approximately $200,000 from his deceased parents. A portion of this inheritance was used to open a joint-tenancy-mutual fund account with A.G. Edwards. Stephen and Margaret executed a joint account agreement, which declared the account to be owned as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Because the final judgment of divorce failed to sufficiently address the AGE joint investment account, AGE notified Stephen (through his counsel) that they would not permit withdrawals from the account unless the final divorce judgment or decree of divorce allowed him to do so. Upon receiving this notice, Stephen filed a motion to alter or amend judgment; however, because this motion was filed more than ten days after the entry of judgment for divorce, the motion was time-barred. Prior to any resolution of the alleged substantive errors in the judgment of divorce, Stephen died and was survived by Margaret. The Estate of Stephen J. Bellino was opened, and Stephen J. Bellino II was appointed administrator of the Estate, and Brandon Brooks served as the attorney. Brooks appeared ex parte before the Forrest County Chancery Court. This hearing was not made known to, or consented to, by Margaret or her attorneys. At this hearing, Brooks improperly obtained an order dispersing funds that was never filed with the Forrest County Chancery Clerk in either the Estate or in the divorce proceedings. Despite these defects, AGE acknowledged the order dispersing funds and, at the request of Brooks, closed the AGE mutual-fund joint account and delivered the proceeds in the amount of $140,370.35 to Brooks, who deposited the funds into the Estate. In 2009, the Forrest County Chancery Court found that the funds represented in the divorce decree as the “Wal-Mart Stock” with a value of $140,000 should have been represented as the AGE funds. An M.R.C.P. 60(a) motion filed by Bellino II was granted to correct the judgment at the time of the divorce. The chancellor proceeded to award present ownership of these funds to Margaret by granting her motion for summary judgment as to the vesting of the AGE funds following the death of Stephen. Bellino II appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | There is no genuine triable issue of fact with regard to the ownership of the AGE account at the time of Stephen’s death; therefore, the granting of summary judgment was appropriate. Ownership of the funds is determined by the language in the Agreement signed by both Stephen and Margaret on May 22, 1995. The Agreement clearly states: “unless specified to the contrary below, this joint account will be carried as joint tenants with rights of survivorship and not as tenants in common.” If Stephen had intended to dissolve Margaret’s contractual interest in the AGE account, the law required that he take the appropriate affirmative actions to effectuate such a change, but the agreement was never modified. Although it is true that Margaret’s initial motion to amend declared the AGE account as a tenants-in-common account, this was a clear mistake of fact. Once Margaret obtained a copy of the Agreement and learned the true nature of the account, she promptly and voluntarily dismissed her motion, stating that it was, indeed, based upon a mistake of fact. Because Margaret’s first position with regard to the nature of the Agreement was based upon a mistake of fact, and because she never benefitted from this position, it would be improper to invoke the doctrine of judicial estoppel. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
