Ladner, et al. v. Ladner
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01705-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-10-2004 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills, trusts & estates - Removal of executor - Section 91-7-85 - Inter vivos gift - Attorney’s fees - Litigation Accountability Act - M.R.C.P. 11 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Dickinson, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-01-2002 Appealed from: Pearl River County Chancery Court Judge: Johnny Lee Williams Disposition: Found for the Appellee and awarded attorney's fees to Appellee against Appellant. Case Number: 02-0069-PR-W |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In the Matter of The Estate of Garland Ladner, Deceased: Fred Ladner and Jack Parsons |
TADD PARSONS
JACK PARSONS |
||
| Appellee: | Luther Ladner | RICHARD C. FITZPATRICK |
|
|
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, trusts & estates - Removal of executor - Section 91-7-85 - Inter vivos gift - Attorney’s fees - Litigation Accountability Act - M.R.C.P. 11 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Fred Ladner filed a petition to probate the Last Will and Testament of Prentiss Garland Ladner. Fred, one of Garland's brothers, was named executor in the will. The estate consisted of, among other things, certain livestock which were located on real property owned by a third brother, Luther Ladner. Fred requested permission from the chancery court to remove the livestock from Luther's property and take the cattle to a stockyard for processing. He also alleged that Luther went onto Garland's property and removed five horses, a cattle trailer, saddles, bridles, blankets, a big screen television and a VCR. Fred requested the chancery court to order Luther to return the horses and the other items to him so he could distribute them according to the will. The chancery court issued letters testamentary to Fred and ordered the Sheriff to assist Fred in retrieving the livestock and personal property from Luther. While Fred was retrieving the livestock, firearms were brandished, and Luther was arrested. After the livestock were removed from Luther's property, Luther sent notices to two stockyards contesting the ownership of the cattle and ordering the stockyards not to sell them. Fred filed suit in the chancery court against Luther, Heber Ladner and Camille Martin, for an order directing the three defendants to release certain property belonging to the estate. The court ordered Fred not to dispose of any estate property, including the livestock. Luther filed a response to the complaint and a counterclaim, alleging that Fred should be removed as executor and demanding damages, attorney's fees and costs. The chancellor found that Garland had made inter vivos gifts of part of the livestock and that Fred and his attorney, Jack Parsons, violated M.R.C.P. 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act because they failed to inform the court of Luther's claims of ownership when they obtained the order for seizing the livestock. The chancellor awarded Luther attorney's fees and expenses in the amount of $2500 to be paid by Fred and Parsons. Fred appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Removal of executor Fred and Parsons argue that the court erred in removing Fred as executor, because executors may not be removed unless a conflict of interest arises between the executor and the estate or when the executor fails to perform properly his duties. Section 91-7-85 provides that an executor may be removed if he becomes disqualified, or for improper conduct in office. Fred's misrepresentation of the true facts (Luther's claims of ownership) to the court amounted to improper conduct under the statute. Issue 2: Inter vivos gifts Fred argues that the court erred in finding that an inter vivos gift of the horses had been made. A party attempting to prove that an inter vivos gift was made must show that the donor was competent to make a gift; that the donation was a voluntary act and the donor had donative intent; that the gift was complete and not conditional; that delivery was made; and that the gift was irrevocable. There was undisputed testimony that Garland directed Camille Martin to fill out a form transferring the horses to Luther and to Martin's daughter. He also directed Martin to sign his name on the form. Others heard Garland say that he wanted Luther and Martin's daughter to have the horses. Fred argues that the horses were on Garland's property and therefore, there was no delivery of the inter vivos gift. Because a valid inter vivos gift was made, it does not matter whether the horses were found on Luther's property or Garland's property. Issue 3: Attorney’s fees Fred and Parsons argue that the court erred in finding that the Litigation Accountability Act and M.R.C.P. 11 had been violated. The record shows that Luther and Fred had at least two confrontations about the ownership of the livestock prior to the will being probated, but the complaint made no mention of the fact that Luther claimed ownership of the livestock. Parsons knew or reasonably should have known that Luther alleged ownership of the livestock, and he made no effort to bring this fact to the chancellor’s attention. Because they misrepresented pertinent facts which were within their knowledge to the chancellor, who entered an order based on the misrepresentations, Fred and Parsons violated the Litigation Accountability Act and M.R.C.P. 11. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
