Stewart, et al. v. Gardner


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CP-00878-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-26-2011
Opinion Author: Ishee, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Wills & estates - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-25 - Concealed fraud
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J.
Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, J.
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-19-2010
Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court
Judge: J. Dewayne Thomas
Disposition: GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AND RESTRAINING ORDER AND DISMISSED THE PETITION CONTESTING THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF GEORGE WILLIAM MACE
Case Number: P2009-21

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: In The Estate of George W. Mace, Deceased: Patty M. Mace Stewart and Lynette Winston O'Neal




PRO SE



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Patricia Hayes Gardner R. LOUIS FIELD  

    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 - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-25 - Concealed fraud

    Summary of the Facts: Patty Mace Stewart and Lynette O’Neal filed suit challenging the last will and testament of their great-uncle, George William Mace, through the administratrix of his will, Patricia Gardner. The grand-nieces claimed that Mace improperly received a portion of family land when their great-grandfather, George Mace Sr., passed away over sixty-five years ago. Because of this invalid transfer of property in which Mace received more than his rightful share, the grand-nieces claimed that the transfer of the land to beneficiaries of his will was invalid. Gardner filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. The grand-nieces appeal.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: The grand-nieces argue that the chancellor erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Gardner, because the fraud that was committed when George Sr. died intestate over sixty-five years ago tolled the statute of limitations. Pursuant to section 15-1-25, the statute of limitations for challenging the administration of an estate is four years after the qualification of an administrator. Pattie probated George Sr.’s estate in 1944. When George Sr. died, his eleven grandchildren by his deceased son, George Jr., were all adults. Yet none of George Jr.’s children challenged the distribution of the property at that time, despite the grand-nieces’ admission that the grandchildren were aware that Pattie did not include them in the distribution of property. An administratrix has an affirmative duty to disclose to the court the existence of known potential heirs and claimants. Because of this affirmative duty, the grand-nieces contend that Pattie’s nondisclosure constituted concealed fraud, which tolled the statute of limitations. To toll a statute of limitations based upon fraud, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant engaged in affirmative acts of concealment, and despite investigating with due diligence, the plaintiff was unable to discover the claim. The grand-nieces admit that all of George Jr.’s children lived on the family land in question after George Sr. had died and were aware of the probate of his estate. The grand-nieces provided no evidence to prove that Pattie concealed the distribution of George Sr.’s estate, or that George Jr.’s children were unable to discover the transfer of property. Since any alleged fraud was not concealed, the statute of limitations was not tolled. The grand-nieces further argue that the chancery court should not have dismissed their case with prejudice because lesser sanctions were available and warranted. Due to the statutory bar, the final order dismissing the case with prejudice was appropriate.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court