Smith v. King, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-IA-01651-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-19-2006 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Conservatorship - Notice - Section 93-13-253 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Diaz, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Cobb, P.J. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-02-2005 Appealed from: Lincoln County Chancery Court Judge: Ed Patten Disposition: This is an interlocutory appeal pursuant to MRAP 5 from an action in Lincoln County Chancery Court in which Kathy Ann King was appointed conservator of her father without notice to any other family member. Case Number: 2001-592 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Judith C. Smith |
W. BRADY KELLEMS, JOSEPH PRESTON DURR |
||
| Appellee: | Kathy Ann King, Charles Smith, Jr., Margaret Smith Britt and Sheila Smith George | OLEN C. BRYANT, 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: | Conservatorship - Notice - Section 93-13-253 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kathy Ann King was appointed conservator of her father, Charles H. Smith, Sr., without notice to any other family member, most notably Charles’ wife, Judith C. Smith. The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Smith argues that the conservatorship is invalid because notice was not given to the spouse or at least one other relative as required by section 93-13-253. King argues that, as Charles’ daughter and the petitioner in the conservatorship matter, she satisfied the requirement of a relative having notice. However, section 93-13-253 requires notice to someone other than the petitioner. Therefore, King’s claim that she, as petitioner, satisfied the requirement of sending notice to next of kin must fail. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
