Butler v. Brantley, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01454-SCT Linked Case(s): 2001-CA-01454-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-12-2004 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Wrongful death claim - Insufficient process - Section 93-13-253 Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith and Waller, P.JJ., Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Cobb and Easley, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-27-2001 Appealed from: Scott County Chancery Court Judge: H. David Clark Disposition: Granted partial dismissal of the complaint. Case Number: 97-045 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In the Matter of the Conservatorship of Buffy Brantley: Billy Butler, Individually and as Next Friend of Yzette Bridget Butler, Justin Price Butler, Roshanda Tatyona Nesha Butler and Antrisa Fontae' Butler, Minors |
ROBERT M. LOGAN |
||
| Appellee: | Lee Girtha Brantley, Individually, and as Guardian of Bridgette Nicks, Yasmine Nicks, and James Nicks, Jr., and Isaac Byrd d/b/a Isaac Byrd & Associates | FELECIA PERKINS KATHRYN N. NESTER AUDREY CAROLYN CURRY TERRY R. LEVY |
|
|
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 - Wrongful death claim - Insufficient process - Section 93-13-253 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Billy Butler, Yzette Butler, Justin Butler, Roshanda Butler and Antrisa Butler filed a complaint seeking that they be awarded a portion of a court-approved settlement. The settlement agreement purported to discharge all claims regarding the alleged medical malpractice of the Mississippi Baptist Medical Center and others in relation to the treatment of Buffy Brantley. The Butlers, Buffy’s father and half-siblings argue that they were necessary parties who were either not included in the settlement or fraudulently induced to waive their valid claims. The court entered an order partially dismissing their complaint, and the Butlers appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Wrongful death claim Insofar as the Butlers argue that the settlement usurped their potential wrongful death claims, dismissal was proper because Buffy is still alive. Mississippi's wrongful death statute does not recognize "contingent" wrongful death claims. To recognize such a claim in this case would usurp Buffy's right to damages to which she would be entitled simply because her relatives anticipate her death earlier than it will naturally occur. In the interest of justice, it is noted that Brantley, the Nicks children, and Butler, by way of power of attorney, were all involved in this settlement. The Butler children were never mentioned by Brantley during settlement agreements or to the chancery court during approval of the settlement. While Butler signed a power of attorney in favor of Brantley, it said nothing about his minor children who have the same relation to Buffy as do the Nicks children. Thus, interested parties were left out of the settlement, and the approval of the chancery court of the settlement must be reversed. Issue 2: Insufficient process The Butlers argue that since Buffy is a minor, this proceeding should be controlled by the law of guardianships rather than conservatorships. Since Buffy suffers from a permanent illness which renders her unable to manage her own estate, either a guardianship or a conservatorship would be appropriate. However, the use of a conservatorship is more appropriate because a guardianship of a minor is terminated when the ward reaches the age of 21 under section 93-13-75, while a conservatorship can be terminated only if the person is restored in mind and body under section 93-13-265. In light of the unfortunate reality that Buffy will most likely not recover from her severe injuries, a conservatorship is appropriate. Under section 93-13-253, the notice required under a conservatorship shall be given to the husband or the wife, or a descendant or an ascendant, or next of kin of the person for whom the conservator is to be appointed, provided the person to whom notice is given is a resident of Mississippi, except where such person is himself the petitioner, it being the intention of the legislature to require personal service on the person for whom the conservator is to be appointed and one relative. Brantley has failed to meet the requirement of sending notice to next of kin. Butler, being the father of Buffy, would certainly qualify as being next of kin. However, this mistake is not fatal considering all the facts of the case. Although Butler was never properly served with notice of the conservatorship proceeding, he admits that he was present in the courtroom during the proceeding. This constitutes an overt act which submitted Butler to the jurisdiction of the court and therefore amounted to notice of the proceedings. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
