Nichols v. Phillips, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CT-01968-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01968-COA ; 2009-CA-01968-COA ; 2009-CT-01968-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-15-2011 Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Condition precedent - Conditional bequest - Residuary estate in fee simple Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): King, 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: 11-16-2009 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: Patricia D. Wise Disposition: DENIED MOTION TO REMOVE COADMINISTRATRICES, DISPENSED WITH INVENTORY, APPROVED FINAL ACCOUNTING, AND RULED THAT DECEDENT’S SISTER TAKE ALL RESIDUARY ASSETS FREE AND CLEAR OF ANY CLAIMS OF THE OTHER HEIRS Case Number: P2004-354 R/1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In The Matter of The Estate of Bobbye N. Brill, Deceased and Annie Hobson Nichols, Deceased: Frank Nichols |
RHETT R. RUSSELL
CLARENCE MCDONALD LELAND
W. O. DILLARD |
||
| Appellee: | Shirlee N. Phillips and Kathryn Kennington | ROBERT DAVID MARCHETTI CAMILLE HENICK EVANS GREGG A. CARAWAY JOSHUA P. HENRY |
|
|
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 - Condition precedent - Conditional bequest - Residuary estate in fee simple |
| Summary of the Facts: | Frank Nichols, individually and as executor of Annie Hobson Nichols’s estate, petitioned the chancery court to remove his sister, Shirlee Phillips, and Kathryn Kennington as coadministratrixes of the estate of his other sister, Bobbye Brill. The chancellor denied Frank’s petition. The chancellor also found that Bobbye’s will created a condition precedent, which Shirlee must perform in order to receive the residuary estate. Frank appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the chancery court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Frank argues that the Court of Appeals failed to conduct a de novo review of whether the chancellor’s construction of Brill’s will – namely, whether the chancellor erred in finding that Brill’s will created a condition precedent. The Court of Appeals’ opinion began by stating correctly that the standard of review is de novo. A reading of the Court of Appeals’ opinion reveals that it did not, however, conduct a de novo review. Rather, the Court of Appeals discussed the chancellor’s findings that the will was unambiguous, that it created a “conditional bequest,” and that Phillips had fulfilled the condition and was entitled to the remainder of Brill’s estate. Thus, the Court of Appeals did not conduct the requisite de novo review. Frank argues that Brill’s will created a testamentary trust for the benefit of Annie, and that the chancery court erred in finding that the will created a conditional bequest. Frank asserts that the third sentence in Bobbye’s will – “The remainder of my estate I leave to my sister, Shirlee Phillips, with the understanding that she will take care of my mother, Annie Nichols” – devises Bobbye’s residuary estate to Annie either “outright or through trust.” The chancellor and the Court of Appeals found that this sentence created a “conditional bequest.” However, the sentence creates neither a testamentary trust nor a “conditional bequest.” Rather, the sentence devised Brill’s residuary estate to Shirlee in fee simple. The language “with the understanding that she will take care of my mother” was a precatory expression of Brill’s wish or desire and was not imperative. Nothing in the will demonstrates that Brill intended to create a trust to benefit her mother or to condition her bequest to Phillips. Reading Brill’s will in its entirety, Phillips is the devisee of Brill’s residuary estate in fee simple. Although both courts erred in finding that the will created a conditional bequest, an appellate court may affirm a trial court if the correct result is reached, even if the trial court reached the correct result for the wrong reasons. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
