Thornhill v. Thornhill
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01515-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-23-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affimred in part and reversed and remanded in part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Property settlement agreement - Insurance proceeds Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Myers, Chandler, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving, J. Concurs in Result Only: Griffis, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-09-2003 Appealed from: Lamar County Chancery Court Judge: Johnny Lee Williams Disposition: CHANCELLOR DENIED MICHAEL THORNHILL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTED JEAN THORNHILL’S MOTION TO DISMISS. ALL OTHER MOTIONS AND ACTIONS WERE DISMISSED. Case Number: 2001-0204-GN-W |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Michael Bruce Thornhill |
SHIRLEE MARIE FAGER-BALDWIN |
||
| Appellee: | Jean F. Thornhill | JOHN D. SMALLWOOD |
|
|
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 - Property settlement agreement - Insurance proceeds |
| Summary of the Facts: | William Thornhill entered into a property settlement agreement with his former spouse, Alice Thornhill, and agreed to maintain a life insurance policy for the benefit of the parties’ minor child, Michael. William later added his new wife Jean as co-beneficiary of the policy. Upon William’s death, the insurance company paid half of the insurance proceeds to Michael and the other half to Jean. Michael filed a petition, asserting his rights to all of the funds. Jean filed a motion to dismiss, and Michael filed a motion for summary judgment. The chancellor granted Jean’s motion to dismiss, and denied Michael’s motion for summary judgment. Michael appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Michael argues that since his father agreed to maintain a $100,000 life insurance policy for Michael's benefit, his father entered into a binding contractual obligation which is enforceable against Jean under a theory of constructive trust. Property settlement agreements are contractual obligations. William and Alice entered into an agreement which expressly provided for William’s maintenance of a life insurance policy in the amount of $100,000 for Michael. Although William later changed Michael's status as sole beneficiary to add Jean as a co-beneficiary, his original obligation to maintain a $100,000 policy with Michael as the beneficiary remained. William, therefore, violated the terms and conditions of his judgment of divorce. Since the property settlement agreement was a binding contract, it was enforceable against William’s estate in the probate proceedings as a breach of contract action. Section 91-7-151 provides that all claims against the estate of deceased persons, whether due or not, shall be registered, probated and allowed in the court in which the letters testamentary or of administration were granted within 90 days after the first publication of notice to creditors. The record indicates that a notice to creditors was first published on April 4, 2000, and Michael filed a petition on August 30, 2000 alleging entitlement to the remaining insurance funds. Clearly, more than ninety days after the first notice to creditors had elapsed when Michael filed his petition. However, Jean, as the executrix of William's will, had an obligation to carry out the terms and conditions of that will, one of which was to serve as Michael's guardian or make known that she was unwilling or unable to do so. Further, in her capacity as guardian, she would have an obligation to initiate any and all claims which her ward, Michael, possessed against his father's estate or against anyone else. Also, Jean was in a fiduciary relationship with Michael and not only had an obligation to initiate any and all claims which Michael may have had, but she had an obligation to initiate them timely. While it is true that Michael did not file his claim against the estate within ninety days of the first publication of the notice to creditors, at that time, Michael was a minor. Any claim should have been filed on his behalf by his guardian unless he had been legally emancipated. Assuming that Michael had not been emancipated, it was incumbent upon Jean to act in the absence of the appointment of another person as guardian. Jean's retention of the insurance proceeds might constitute unjust enrichment. Therefore, the court erred in granting Jean's motion. This case is remanded for a full and complete development of the facts and trial if warranted after appropriate discovery. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
