Walters v. Barnes, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CA-02070-COA
Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-02070-COA ; 2010-CT-02070-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-13-2012
Opinion Author: Lee, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Wills & estates - Joint accounts - Motion to amend - M.R.C.P. 15(a) - Undue influence - Gift inter vivos - Confidential relationship - Attorney's fees
Judge(s) Concurring: Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-23-2010
Appealed from: Monroe County Chancery Court
Judge: Jacqueline Mask
Disposition: GRANTED APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
Case Number: 07-0643-48

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: In The Matter of The Estate of William Birmingham, Deceased: Nancy Birmingham Walters




GENE BARTON



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Don Barnes and Rosemary Birmingham Barnes RHETT R. RUSSELL  

    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 - Joint accounts - Motion to amend - M.R.C.P. 15(a) - Undue influence - Gift inter vivos - Confidential relationship - Attorney's fees

    Summary of the Facts: William Birmingham died testate on October 14, 2007, and was survived by his two daughters, Nancy Birmingham Walters and Rosemary Birmingham Barnes. Shortly thereafter, Nancy presented Birmingham’s will for probate and was appointed executrix. On March 10, 2009, Rosemary filed a complaint to remove Nancy as executrix, to revoke Nancy’s letters testamentary, for an accounting, and for damages. The chancellor removed Nancy as executrix and cancelled the letters testamentary. Nancy was ordered to pay to the clerk of the court approximately $41,000 in funds from a joint money-market account Nancy had liquidated after Birmingham’s death. Rosemary’s husband, Don Barnes, was listed as the co-owner of this particular account. A trial was held on August 8, 2010, and October 22, 2010. At the close of Nancy’s case-in-chief, Rosemary and Don made a motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R.C.P. 41(b) contending Nancy had failed to support her claim. The chancellor agreed, finding that there was no proof to support the claims of fraud, duress, mistake, incompetency, or undue influence; the money, approximately $41,000, in the joint money market account which Nancy withdrew was Don’s property; Nancy’s request to amend the pleadings was denied; and the parties were ordered to pay the Estate’s attorney’s fees. Nancy appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Joint accounts Nancy argues that Birmingham’s will supersedes the dictates of the joint accounts; thus, the money in the joint accounts belongs to Birmingham’s estate. Nancy focuses on the account designated as a joint account with right of survivorship, namely the account created in Alabama with Don’s name listed as the co-owner. Regardless of whether Mississippi or Alabama law is applied, the result is the same: at Birmingham’s death, the funds in the joint account remained Don’s property. Nancy argues Don cannot claim ownership of the joint account because Rosemary and Don stated in their complaint that the money in the joint account belonged to Birmingham’s estate. Upon realizing Don was the co-owner of the joint account, which was several months after the complaint was filed, Don filed a counterclaim asserting he was the rightful owner of the joint account. Prior to trial, Rosemary and Don made a motion to amend the complaint to strike the following sentence: “Soon after her appointment Nancy Birmingham Walters took possession of more than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) of Decedent’s probate estate.” In granting the motion to amend, the chancellor asked Nancy if she was prejudiced as a result of this amendment. Nancy responded she was not prejudiced. However, Nancy later objected to the amending of the pleadings to strike that particular sentence. M.R.C.P. 15(a) states that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. The chancellor did not abuse his discretion in allowing Rosemary and Don to amend their complaint. Rosemary and Don had discovered the joint account belonged to Don; thus, their amendment was merely to conform to the evidence. Furthermore, Nancy admitted she was not prejudiced by the amendment. Issue 2: Undue influence Nancy argues the chancellor erred in granting Rosemary and Don’s joint motion to dismiss. Nancy argues the evidence established undue influence in the creation of the joint accounts with Rosemary or Don as the beneficiaries, such that the funds in these accounts should belong to Birmingham’s estate. A presumption of undue influence only arises in the context of gifts by will when there has been some abuse of the confidential relationship, such as some involvement in the preparation or execution of the will. On the other hand, with a gift inter vivos, there is an automatic presumption of undue influence even without abuse of the confidential relationship. Such gifts are presumptively invalid. If Nancy is able to demonstrate the existence of a confidential relationship between Birmingham and Don, a rebuttable presumption of undue influence arises regarding any inter vivos transactions between the two. Nancy did not demonstrate that a confidential relationship existed between Birmingham and Don. According to the evidence presented, Birmingham did not rely upon Rosemary or Don to take care of him. Rosemary or Don occasionally drove him places, but the testimony overwhelming showed Birmingham was self-sufficient. Birmingham cooked his own meals, took care of himself up until a few weeks prior to his death, was capable of handling his investments, exercised regularly, was “sharp as a tack” as far as money was concerned, had a practice of designating beneficiaries on his investments, and administered his own medication. There was no allegation Birmingham did not understand the nature and consequences of his actions or the extent of his estate. Thus, this issue is without merit. Issue 3: Attorney’s fees Nancy argues she should not have been required to pay a portion of the attorney’s fees. The chancellor ordered Nancy to pay $1,500; Rosemary to pay $750; and Don to pay $750. Nancy has failed to support her argument with authority; thus, the Court is precluded from considering this claim on appeal.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court