Haley, et al. v. Thomas, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CT-01230-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-01230-SCT ; 2002-CA-01230-COA ; 2002-CA-01230-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-14-2004 Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J. Holding: The Judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed, and The Judgment of the Chancery Court of Jefferson County is Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Inheritance by illegitimate children - Notice - Section 91-1-15(3)(c) - Tolling of time period Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Waller, P.J., Diaz and Graves, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-28-2002 Appealed from: Jefferson County Chancery Court Judge: George Ward Disposition: NATASHA GAIL MOTLEY AND DONNIE HOWARD DETERMINED TO BE THE SOLE HEIRS OF EZELL "BOGGIE" THOMAS. Case Number: 97-0162 |
|
| Note: | The supreme court reversed the court of appeals reversed and rendered, which had held that Thomas’s heirs at law are his brother, sisters, mother and descendants of his deceased brother and sister, and not his illegitimate children as found by the trial court. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In the Matter of the Estate of Ezell "Boggie" a/k/a "Boogie" Thomas, Deceased: Sharon Haley, Jannie Collins, Derick Thomas, Eric Thomas, Timothy Thomas, Lynn Vallian, Dezie Haley, Gayle Haley, Demetria Murry, Jimmy Dale Dixon, Ray Joseph Fountain, Delanious Grinnell and Marion Oliver |
KEVIN DWIGHT MUHAMMAD |
||
| Appellee: | Glenda Joyce Thomas, Administratrix | CHRISTOPHER E. FITZGERALD ROBERT A. PRITCHARD |
|
|
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 - Inheritance by illegitimate children - Notice - Section 91-1-15(3)(c) - Tolling of time period |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ezell “Boogie” Thomas died intestate in 1997. His estate, which consisted solely of claims for unliquidated damages against R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and others, was administered in the Jefferson County Chancery Court. Glenda Thomas, a sister of the decedent and administratrix of the estate, instituted estate proceedings. When she filed the petition to administer the estate, she listed only one of Thomas’s children, Natasha Motley as a surviving heir, as well as Thomas’s mother, one brother, four sisters, and a half sister. The administration was dormant until 2001, at which time a petition to distribute $2,200 from the estate was filed by the administratrix, joined by two sisters of the decedent, Elisha Clark and Louise Griffin. There was a signature line for Natasha3 to join also, but it was not signed. The petition stated that these four were the only remaining heirs at law. The subsequent order authorizing disbursement of the funds, noted that Natasha “cannot be located” and her share of the funds should be paid into the registry of the chancery court to be held until she could be found. Despite having listed Natasha on the initial petition, and later acknowledging that Thomas had a son, Donnie, the administratrix failed to give notice of the administration of their father’s estate to either Natasha or Donnie, as Thomas’s illegitimate children and thus potential heirs. R.J. Reynolds moved to have Thomas’s sister removed as administratrix and for determination of Thomas’s lawful heirs. The chancellor ordered a determination of heirs. The chancery court found, upon clear and convincing evidence, that Natasha and Donnie were the sole heirs at law of Ezell Thomas. The decedent’s other relatives appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and rendered, finding that the one-year statute of limitations prohibiting suits to determine heirs cannot be tolled. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The issue is whether an affirmative duty exists for the administratrix to provide notice to the potential heirs of an estate, and if so, whether failure to give the potential heirs such notice tolls the 90-day statutory time period. Under section 91-1-15(3)(c), paternity claims of illegitimate children seeking inheritance must be filed either within one year of the death of the intestate or within 90 days of the first publication of notice. The administratrix must provide notice to known or reasonably ascertainable illegitimate children who are potential heirs and whose claims would be barred if the 90-day statutory time period had run. The administratrix knew the decedent had children. There was evidence that Thomas had recognized these children as his own, and they knew him to be their father. However, the administratrix failed to notify either Natasha or Donnie until long after both the 90-day and the one-year time periods prescribed in section 91-1-15 had run. The decedent died intestate on August 8, 1997. The one-year limitations period under the illegitimate children statute ended on August 8, 1998. First publication to creditors occurred on November 13, 1997. The 90-day limitations period under the illegitimate child statute ended on or about February 12, 1998. Notice of the administration of Thomas’s estate was not provided to Natasha and Donnie until 2002. Section 91-1-15 provides two time periods, only one of which is to be used. Due process requires notice or diligent efforts to secure actual notice be given. Natasha and Donnie, though easily known and ascertainable, were not notified of the administration of their father’s estate until long after both time periods had run. Failure of the administratrix to provide such notice results in a tolling of the 90-day statute. The tolled time period did not become “untolled” to result in use of the self-executing one-year time period. Doing so would punish the decedent’s children for something that was no fault of their own, preventing them from inheriting from a man who recognized and loved them, and in this case, benefitting the administratrix, who stands to inherit if the children are excluded. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
