Estate of Beckley v. Beckley
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00580-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-00580-COA ; 2005-CT-00580-SCT ; 2005-CT-00580-SCT ; 2005-CT-00580-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-08-2006 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Certificate of deposit - Parol evidence - Power of attorney Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ. and Barnes, J. Dissenting Author : Chandler, J. Dissent Joined By : Southwick, Irving, Griffis and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-22-2005 Appealed from: Pontotoc County Chancery Court Judge: Jason H. Floyd, Jr. Disposition: JOHN BECKLEY ADJUDICATED TO BE THE OWNER OF CERTAIN FUNDS. Case Number: 2002-0047 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | The Estate of Ladell Beckley, Deceased: Clarence Beckley, as Executor |
RHETT R. RUSSELL, D. KIRK THARP |
||
| Appellee: | John Beckley | GENE BARTON |
|
|
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 - Certificate of deposit - Parol evidence - Power of attorney |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ladell Beckley lived near his nephew, Larry Satterwhite. When his health began to decline, Satterwhite began caring for Ladell by tending to his health needs, providing his transportation, and performing errands for him. In September 2000, Ladell met with his attorney and executed a will. In the will, Ladell bequeathed one hundred dollars each to two individuals unconcerned with this litigation, and left the residue of his property to five of his children, in equal shares. Ladell had saved approximately seventy thousand dollars. On October 18, 2000, Ladell purchased a certificate of deposit from BancorpSouth bank in the amount of $28,699.79. This certificate of deposit was titled jointly in the name of “Ladell Beckley or John Beckley.” Under the heading “Account Ownership,” the certificate of deposit indicated that Ladell had requested a joint account with survivorship. On March 8, 2001, Ladell purchased another certificate of deposit, this one in the approximate amount of $29,000. He titled this certificate of deposit in the name of himself or Satterwhite. On October 18, 2001, Ladell bought a third certificate of deposit in the amount of $10,000 and titled it in the name of himself or Satterwhite. In January 2002, Ladell was admitted to a nursing home. Ladell executed a durable power of attorney appointing Satterwhite as his attorney-in-fact. On January 14, 2002, Satterwhite, wielding the power of attorney, withdrew the funds from the certificate of deposit titled to Ladell Beckley or John Beckley and deposited these funds into another certificate of deposit in the name of Larry Satterwhite or John Beckley. On the same day, Satterwhite also withdrew the funds from the two certificates of deposit that he jointly held with Ladell. Satterwhite used a portion of these funds to pay the balance of a loan of Ladell's in the amount of $2,769.52. With the remainder of the funds, Satterwhite purchased two certificates of deposit in the amounts of $27,136.85 and $10,066.30. These certificates of deposit were titled in Satterwhite's name only. Ladell’s health improved and he left the nursing home. In February of 2002, Ladell visited his attorney and at Ladell's request, the attorney drafted a complaint against Satterwhite for the return of the funds. The complaint was filed on February 7, 2002, initiating the instant lawsuit. Ladell passed away on March 1, 2002, and his will was admitted to probate on March 4, 2002. His son Clarence was named the executor of Ladell's estate. Clarence filed a motion, in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of Ladell Beckley, requesting that he be substituted as a party/plaintiff. John Beckley filed a motion to intervene asserting his interest in the funds from the certificate of deposit that bore his name prior to Satterwhite’s redemption of that certificate of deposit. The court determined that the funds should be put back into the certificates of deposit as they were before Satterwhite used the power of attorney. The chancellor also ordered that the proceeds of the October 18, 2000 certificate of deposit be delivered to John. Clarence appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Certificate of deposit Clarence argues that the court erred in finding that the 2000 certificate of deposit vested in John, as survivor, because the certificate of deposit was not a valid negotiable instrument at the time of Ladell’s death, as it was redeemed prior to his death. The certificate of deposit purchased by Ladell on October 18, 2000, was titled jointly in the name of “Ladell Beckley or John Beckley.” Under the heading “Account Ownership,” Ladell indicated that the certificate of deposit was to be jointly owned with survivorship. Pursuant to Mississippi law, at Ladell’s death, John presumptively held title to the funds in the certificate of deposit that bore his name with survivorship, absent a showing of forgery, fraud, duress, or an unrebutted presumption of undue influence. Clarence also argues that Ladell intended that the funds in question be transferred to Ladell’s children upon his death, as evidenced by the testimony of his children and the provisions of his will. In a prior case, the Supreme Court found that parol evidence was inadmissible to show the decedent’s intent and that the funds represented by the banking instruments never became a part of the decedent’s estate. Thus, the express language of the certificate of deposit is the most reliable evidence of Ladell’s intent. Issue 2: Power of attorney Clarence argues that the court did not have the authority to void and set aside the power of attorney. As a result of finding the existence of a confidential relationship and an unrebutted presumption of undue influence, the court invalidated the power of attorney and set aside Satterwhite’s redemption of the 2000 certificate of deposit. The court determined that the redemption was only made possible through the use of undue influence in obtaining the power of attorney. This is wholly in accord with prior precedent. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
