Dealing with Missing Persons
October 2, 2014 § Leave a comment
Several years ago a woman in our district disappeared without a trace, leaving behind some real property on which was situated her residence, some bank accounts, and some other assets, along with the usual bills that accompany those. After some fruitless weeks the focus of the family’s attention shifted from finding her to dealing with her affairs. What could they do?
The answer is in the conservatorship statute, MCA 93-13-251, which states:
If a person is incapable of managing his own estate … because the person is missing or outside the United States and unable to return, the chancery court of the county where the person resides or, in the case of a missing or absent person, the chancery court of the county where the person most recently resided, upon petition of … one or more of his friends or relatives, may appoint a conservator to have charge and management of the property of the person … subject to the direction of the appointing court.
NOTE: We’re not dealing here with military missing or missing in action. That is specifically addressed in MCA 93-13-161.
Since the person is not to be found in Mississippi, an affidavit must be filed that the person is not to be found in the state after diligent inquiry, and process by publication must be made on the missing person pursuant to MRCP 4(c)(4). Thirty days’ process should be given, with notice to a day and time certain. Personal process, waiver, or joinder must also be had on one relative of the proposed ward residing in Mississippi, and MCA 93-13-153 spells out what class of relative will satisfy the requirement.
MCA 93-13-255 provides that the court shall conduct a hearing on the need for a conservator, and may appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL). In my opinion, it would be prudent to appoint a GAL in cases of this sort. The section also requires that the ward be examined by two physicians. That, of course, is problematical where the ward is missing. I think it can be reasonably deduced from the conservatorship statutes that this requirement applies only to proceedings of incapacity of advanced age, and not to missing persons. Since missing persons are specifically mentioned in Section 251, and are not mentioned in Section 255, it is reasonable to assume that there is no such requirement for them.
The conservator in such cases, has the same powers and duties as guardian of a minor (Section 259). The conservator may make provision for support of the ward’s dependents (Section 263).
Appointment of a conservator imposes the same disability on the missing ward as if he or she were a minor (Section 261). If the ward reappears, a petition must be filed to restore the ward’s legal capacity and end the conservatorship (Section 265). That would require a final account, with notice to the ward, all as provided in MCA 93-13-77.
Attorney’s Fees Directed by the Will
October 1, 2014 § Leave a comment
B.D. Benoist included a provision in his will that any beneficiary who contested his will “shall pay all attorneys fees and court costs associated with the Will contest or related action.”
The will was, indeed, unsuccessfully contested by Bronwyn Parker, B.D.’s daughter and a beneficiary, and the executor demanded award of an attorney’s fee.
Before we go any further, we’ve posted twice before here about this case. One post addressed the question as to when a temporary administrator should be appointed. The second post set out the MSSC’s new rule that there is a good faith and probable cause exception to enforceability of in terrorem clauses in wills.
As to that later point, you will recall that the MSSC reversed the chancellor’s ruling that Bronwyn was disinherited because she challenged the will. Due to the fact that she acted in good faith and with probable cause to believe her position was correct, neither she nor the executor were bound by the in terrorem clause.
But what about where a will directs, as in the language above, simply that the contestant must pay the fees and court costs, without language that the challenging beneficiary will be disinherited? Can that be enforced?
Here’s what the MSSC said:
¶28. The forfeiture provision of B.D.’s will stated that if any beneficiary instituted a will contest, that beneficiary “shall pay all attorneys fees and court costs associated with the Will contest or related action.” When the chancery court initially held that the forfeiture provision in B.D.’s will was enforceable, it also concluded that Bronwyn was required to pay attorney fees for initiating the will contest. Upon granting Bronwyn’s motion to reconsider, the chancellor held that B.D.’s will could not obligate her to pay attorney fees. The chancellor reasoned that, although the “paramount duty of the court is to ascertain the intent of the testator,” the court still may not give effect to such intent if it is “contrary to law or public policy.” The chancellor reasoned that, in requiring payment of attorney fees, the testator essentially was attempting to dictate the transfer of property that was not his and was beyond his control. The chancellor analyzed Mississippi Code Section 91-5-1,12 which governs the authority of individuals to create wills, and concluded that it did not give persons power over property which was not theirs to begin with. We agree with this conclusion. Section 91-5-1 permits the testator to dispose of and “devise all the estate, right, title and interest in possession, reversion, or remainder, which he or she hath, or at the time of his or her death shall have. . . .” Miss. Code Ann. § 91-5-1 (Rev. 2013). The testator is not empowered to control assets that do not belong to him or her through a will, but may control only those things “which he or she hath, or at the time of his or her death shall have. . . .” Id. This clearly does not contemplate funds of a third party over which the testator had no control during his or her life or at his or her death. Mississippi does not statutorily authorize the payment of attorney fees by an unsuccessful will contestant. Accordingly, William can prevail in his claim only if there is an alternative avenue through which an award of attorney fees is appropriate.
¶29. We review a chancellor’s determination of whether to award attorney fees under an abuse of discretion standard. Schwander v. Rubel, 221 Miss. 875, 897, 75 So. 2d 45, 54 (1954) (quoting King v. Wade, 175 Miss. 72, 166 So. 327, 330 (1936)) (emphasis added). “[W]hen there is no contractual provision or statutory authority providing for attorney’s fees, they may not be awarded as damages unless punitive damages are proper as well.” Willard v. Paracelsus Health Care Corp., 681 So. 2d 539, 544 (Miss. 1996). There is no statutory authority for a testator to require the payment of attorney fees, and Bronwyn and William were not parties to a contract which included an attorney fees provision. Bronwyn has not been subject to punitive damages, nor is she in contempt of court. The chancellor did not abuse his discretion in denying attorney fees to William. The chancellor correctly noted that Mississippi does not statutorily authorize the payment of attorney fees by an unsuccessful will contestant. All that is permissible is for the will to detail the disbursement of the testator’s property. The Legislature has not seen fit to grant testators the authority to invoke the power of the courts to compel unsuccessful contestants to pay attorney fees incurred in defending a will contest. As concluded by the chancellor, there are no means by which William can obtain attorney fees in these circumstances.
A couple of useful points in this case:
- A testator may only direct the disposition of funds over which he had control during his life. Since an award of attorney’s fees would be a disposition of a third party’s funds, that’s outside the scope of the testator’s power.
- There are only three avenues for a chancellor to award attorney’s fees: (1) where there is a contractual agreement for award of attorney’s fees; or (2) where there is a statute authorizing an award of attorney’s fees; or (3) where there is an award of punitive damages. Of course, attorney’s fees may be awarded on a finding of contempt, but there are statutes authorizing that.
I wonder whether language that authorized the executor to reduce the share of any unsuccessful or bad faith contestant (or contestants pro rata) by the amount of attorney fees and costs incurred by the estate in defending the will, with the amount to be adjudicated by the court, would get by?
Remember that Benoist does not do away with in terrorem clauses in our jurisprudence. It merely opens a line of attack that had heretofore been closed to Mississippi litigants. So can still use your legal creativity to help your clients come up with language that will help blunt or mitigate the attack.
TPR: It Takes More than Non-Payment of Support
September 24, 2014 § 2 Comments
The COA decision in Fuller v. Weidner, decided September 16, 2014, is a reminder of a couple of basic concepts in termination of parental rights (TPR) cases.
James Fuller and Rachel Weidner had a non-marital relationship out of which was born Remmy Fuller on February 13, 2009.
James and Rachel’s association was punctuated with domestic-violence and protective-order actions, and on April 14, 2010, James was ordered to have “no contact involving the child until chancery court establishes custody.”
On April 27, 2010, the chancery court entered a child support order in a DHS case it filed against James, including an assessment of past-due support.
In May, 2012, Rachel filed a TPR action against James. A GAL was appointed per the statute, and when the case finally reached trial in April, 2013, the chancellor found that James had abandoned Remmy, and terminated James’s parental rights. James appealed, arguing that the chancellor misapplied the law and erred in finding that he had abandoned his daughter.
The COA affirmed. Here is the pertinent part of Judge Lee’s opinion:
¶7. Fuller acknowledges his two issues are intertwined and addresses both together. So do we. Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-15-103 (Rev. 2013) lists several grounds for the termination of parental rights. Sections 93-15-103(3)(b) and (f) allow for the termination of parental rights if:
(b) A parent has made no contact with a child under the age of three (3) for six (6) months or a child three (3) years of age or older for a period of one (1) year; or
. . . .
(f) When there is an extreme and deep-seated antipathy by the child toward the parent or when there is some other substantial erosion of the relationship between the parent and child which was caused at least in part by the parent’s serious neglect, abuse, prolonged and unreasonable absence, unreasonable failure to visit or communicate, or prolonged imprisonment . . . .
In this instance, the chancellor determined that Fuller had not contacted Remmy “for more than the six (6) months mandated by statute.” Fuller contends the chancellor misapplied the law because Remmy was three at the time Weidner filed the termination action; thus, the applicable time period should have been one year. However, the chancellor specifically found Fuller had not seen Remmy since April 2010, and had not attempted to establish any visitation with her. At the time of the hearing in April 2013, Fuller had not seen his daughter in three years.
¶8. Fuller admits he has not seen Remmy since April 2010, but states he was under the mistaken belief that he was not allowed to contact her until the chancery court established custody as required by the restraining order. Fuller acknowledges he did try to contact Weidner after the restraining order had expired but was unable to reach her and did not attempt to contact her directly again, even though he knew where Weidner and Remmy were living.
¶9. The chancellor further determined that Fuller had failed to pay any child support for approximately two years, and only began to pay once Weidner filed her termination action. We do recognize that “[f]ailure to pay child support without more is insufficient predicate for a finding of abandonment.” Carter v. Taylor, 611 So. 2d 874, 877 (Miss. 1992). We reiterate that at the time Weidner filed the termination action, Fuller had not seen Remmy in two years nor made any serious efforts to do so. “A finding of substantial erosion of the parent/child relationship necessarily involves a consideration of the relationship as it existed when the termination proceedings were initiated.” G.Q.A. v. Harrison Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 771 So. 2d 331, 338 (¶29) (Miss. 2000). A substantial erosion can be proved by showing a prolonged absence and lack of communication between the parent and the child. Ainsworth v. Natural Father, 414 So. 2d 417, 420 (Miss. 1982). In a similar case, this Court affirmed the chancellor’s decision to terminate a father’s parental rights since the father had admittedly not seen his child in two years and only started paying child support after the termination action was filed. R.L. v. G.F., 973 So. 2d 322, 324-25 (¶¶8-10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).
A couple of points from a fairly clear-cut case:
- Whichever side of the case you’re on, in my experience failure to have contact within the statutory time without serious mitigating factors is pretty much a slam-dunk when it comes to TPR.
- Failure to support is more of an aggravating circumstance that lends weight to the termination action, but, as the case cite says, it does not warrant TPR in and of itself.
If James had been serious about seeing and contacting his daughter, there are numerous ways that he could have documented his efforts and created substantiating testimony. The inescapable conclusion he left both the chancellor and the COA was that he had really made no effort because he had no proof other than his naked assertions.
If a James comes to your office complaining that he has had trouble contacting and visiting with his baby, advise him of the TPR law and help him document his efforts. Then file an action to establish or enforce his visitation rights. The sooner the better. Oh, and be sure to tell him that a dad who isn’t paying child support gets little or no sympathy from the chancellor.
When Can a Chancellor Award Punitive Damages?
September 18, 2014 § 4 Comments
Bar-Til entered into a contract as a subcontractor to do some work for Superior Asphalt on Pull-A-Part’s property. Problems arose with some environmental regulations that required some change orders. As the work expanded, so did the bills, and Superior quit paying the invoices.
Bar-Til sued Superior for breach of contract, breach of covenant of fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty. Bar-Til included Pull-A-Part on the basis that it had been unjustly enriched by Bar-Til’s uncompensated effort. When the trial was in its third day, Bar-Til moved to amend its complaint to allege bad faith, seeking punitive damages from Superior. The chancellor granted the motion, but clarified that only the issue of whether punitive damages would be an issue was before the court. He said that Bar-Til could “offer the proof of punitive damages when we decide if that’s going to be an issue.”
At the conclusion of trial, the chancellor found for Bar-Til on the breach of contract issue, and added that Bar-Til was even entitled to recover on a quantum meruit basis. The chancellor found that Bar-Til failed to prove that Superior acted in bad faith or breached a fiduciary duty, and so failed to prove entitlement to punitive damages. Since no punitive damages were due, attorney’s fees were denied. The judge also found that Bar-Til had failed to prove any of its claims against Pull-A-Part.
Bar-Til appealed on the chancellor’s denial of punitive damages, charging that the denial was in error, as was the chancellor’s refusal to hold a separate hearing on punitive damages.
In the COA case of Bar-Til, Inc. vs. Superior Asphalt, Inc. and Pull-A-Part, LLC, decided August 26, 2014, Judge Carlton spelled out the parameters for chancery judges considering whether to award punitive damages:
¶14. Our caselaw provides that “[t]he award of punitive damages, along with the amount of such, are within the discretion of the trier of fact.” Hurst v. Sw. Miss. Legal Servs. Corp., 708 So. 2d 1347, 1350 (¶6) (Miss. 1998) (citation omitted). In contract cases, “[p]unitive damages may not be awarded if the claimant does not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant against whom punitive damages are sought acted with actual malice, gross negligence which evidences a willful, wanton[,] or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or committed actual fraud.” Miss. Code. Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(a) (Supp. 2013). In determining the propriety of punitive damages, a chancellor “decides whether, under the totality of the circumstances and viewing the defendant’s conduct in the aggregate, a reasonable, hypothetical trier of fact could find either malice or gross neglect/reckless disregard.” Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Murphree, 653 So. 2d 857, 863 (Miss. 1994) (citations omitted).
* * *
¶19. We now turn to a review of the statutory law and caselaw applicable to punitive damages. In discussing whether an award of punitive damages is proper, Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-1-65(1)(b)-(c) (Supp. 2013) provides:
In any action in which the claimant seeks an award of punitive damages, the trier of fact shall first determine whether compensatory damages are to be awarded and in what amount, before addressing any issues related to punitive damages.
If, but only if, an award of compensatory damages has been made against a party, the court shall promptly commence an evidentiary hearing to determine whether punitive damages may be considered by the same trier of fact.
¶20. The Mississippi Supreme Court has also provided the following guidance:
Mississippi law does not favor punitive damages; they are considered an extraordinary remedy and are allowed with caution and within narrow limits. Punitive damages should be awarded in addition to actual or compensatory damages where the violation of a right or the actual damages sustained, import insult, fraud, or oppression and not merely injuries, but injuries inflicted in the spirit of wanton disregard for the rights of others. In other words, there must be some element of aggression or some coloring of insult, malice[,] or gross negligence, evincing ruthless disregard for the rights of others, so as to take the case out of the ordinary rule.
. . . This Court has held that punitive damages are recoverable in breach of contract cases where the breach results from an intentional wrong and when there has been a showing of malice or gross/reckless disregard for the rights of others. Punitive damages are only appropriate in the most egregious cases so as to discourage similar conduct and should only be awarded in cases where the actions are extreme.
Warren v. Derivaux, 996 So. 2d 729, 738 (¶¶27-28) (Miss. 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
¶21. As our precedent reflects, some underlying basis, such as actual malice or fraud, must exist for an award of punitive damages before a chancellor will hold a second hearing on the issue of such damages. See Miss. Code. Ann. § 11-1-65(1) (Supp. 2013). In the present case, the chancellor found no merit to Bar-Til’s claim that Superior’s conduct justified an award of punitive damages. As reflected in his order and final judgment, the chancellor found that Bar-Til failed to provide the requisite evidentiary basis to support an award of punitive damages.
That’s a pretty nifty survey of the law of punitive damages, and it illustrates how exceptional and infrequent such awards are.
The COA swept aside Bar-Til’s claim about the failure to hold a separate hearing based on the chancellor’s conclusion that punitive damages were not warranted.
When Should a Temporary Administrator be Appointed?
September 17, 2014 § 2 Comments
MCA 91-7-53 allows the court in a will contest, on filing of a petition by an interested person, to appoint a temporary administrator if necessary to protect the rights of the parties.
In the case of Parker v. Benoist, decided August 28, 2014, the MSSC was confronted with the question whether the chancellor should have appointed a temporary administrator in a will contest. We talked about this case previously in connection with in terrorem clauses.
Bronwyn Parker filed a contest in connection with the will of her father, B.D. Benoist. She also filed a motion to remove her brother, William, from his position as executor, claiming that he had appropriated most of B.D.’s assets for himself through undue influence before B.D.’s death, and that he had unduly influenced his father in the making of the will being contested. She contended that a previous will, executed in 1998, was her father’s true, valid will. Because William was defending the will from which he benefited, and which Bronwyn argued should be set aside, William should be removed as fiduciary.
The chancellor overruled Bronwyn’s motion, finding that there were factual issues which were “strongly disputed between the parties,” and that “[t]here [wa]s no uncontested evidence for the Court to remove William D. Benoist as the Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Billy Dean ‘B.D.’ Benoist.”
Bronwyn appealed, charging that it was error for the trial judge to refuse to remove William.
The MSSC affirmed on the point. Justice Kitchens wrote for the court:
¶26. “[W]henever a last will and testament shall be contested, the chancery court or chancellor in vacation, on petition of any interested person, may appoint a temporary administrator if it shall appear necessary for the protection of the rights of the parties. . . .” Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-53 (Rev. 2013). Chancellors have wide discretion in appointing a new executor in a will contest, and this Court “should not reverse his action unless there is clear evidence of abuse of that discretion.” Sandifer v. Sandifer, 237 Miss. 464, 469, 115 So.2d 46, 48 (1959). On appeal, Bronwyn essentially reiterates the facts that she believes necessitated a finding by the chancellor that a new executor should be appointed–substantial gifts from B.D. to William before B.D.’s death and William’s mismanagement and depletion of estate assets after B.D.’s death. She argues that, because the jury found that William was in a confidential relationship with B.D., there was a presumption of undue influence.
¶27. We find that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in denying Bronwyn’s petition to remove William as executor. The chancellor considered all of the arguments Bronwyn has made on appeal and determined that the circumstances did not warrant the appointment of a new executor. We cannot say the chancellor was manifestly wrong or that he abused his discretion. We are slightly troubled, however, by the wording of the chancellor’s order denying Bronwyn’s petition. The chancellor stated that there was no “uncontested evidence” that would justify removing William as the executor. It is not required that there be uncontested evidence to justify the removal of an executor. All that is required is that the chancellor determine, in his or her discretion, that it is necessary to remove the current executor to protect the rights of the parties to the will contest. See Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-53 (Rev. 2013). “Nowhere does the statute say that before he may appoint a temporary administrator he must find that the executor named in the will is disqualified or has been guilty of misconduct in office.” Sandifer, 115 So. 2d at 47-48. We clarify that chancellors enjoy wide discretion in granting or denying requests to remove an executor, and that a party is not required to present “uncontested evidence” to succeed in such a petition. Bronwyn’s claim of error on this issue, however, is without merit.
To put it in simpler terms: even though the chancellor followed the wrong road map, he arrived at the right destination, so no reversal.
What jumps out from this case is that it is not enough for the executor and the contestant to be pitted against one another in the litigation. Nor is it enough that the executor have a stake in the outcome. You have to convince the chancellor that that removal is necessary to protect the interests of the parties to the litigation. Even then, it is within the chancellor’s discretion, and to reverse his decision on appeal, you must convince the appellate court that he was manifestly wrong or abused his discretion.
Child Support Deviation for Daycare
September 9, 2014 § 1 Comment
MCA 43-19-103 is an intriguing statute. For those of you who every now and then look at the Mississippi Code, you will find much there that will assist you in advising your clients in child support cases, whether original or modification.
Section 103 sets out the so-called “deviation criteria” upon which a chancellor may rely in finding that application of the statutory child support guidelines in MCA 43-19-101 would be unjust or inappropriate.
In particular, I want to call to your attention that the Mississippi Legislature in 2012 amended the statute to add subsection (i), which reads as follows:
Payment by the obligee of child care expenses in order that the obligee may seek or retain employment, or because of the disability of the obligee.
This subsection allows the judge to find that the child care expenses for employment or occasioned by disability skew the payee’s expenses to the extent that a deviation upward from the guidelines is justified.
I don’t know about you, but when I practiced I saw many cases where the chancellor awarded strictly guideline child support, which was barely enough to pay the custodial parent’s daycare expenses so that she could work in a low-paying job. There was nothing left over to pay other expenses of the child, which fell on the mother to bear.
The most recent case in which a chancellor’s deviation based on daycare expenses was upheld is Marin v. Stewart, a COA case decided September 24, 2013, about which I previously posted here. My earlier post focused on the point that the chancellor is not required to address each and every deviation factor if she concludes that deviation is appropriate, but only those that apply in the case.
Before you launch off into your next child support case — whether you represent the payor or payee — study Section 103 and see whether there is anything there that will help your case. As I have said many times here before: when you save your clients money, they love you; and when you cost your clients money, they hate you.
You Can Use Escalation Clauses Once Again
September 8, 2014 § Leave a comment
The landmark case of Tedford v. Dempsey, 437 So.2d 410 (Miss. 1983), is notable primarily as the case that firmly established the age of 21 as the ultimate age of emancipation in Mississippi.
Tedford is also the case that encouraged lawyers and judges to incorporate child support escalation clauses into their PSA’s and judgments. This is the specific language from the opinion:
Binding a Minor to a Settlement
August 14, 2014 § 4 Comments
Minors can not act for themselves. That creates some obstacles when a minor is injured in an accident, and the insurance company or some other paying party needs a signature on a release to settle the claim.
In Matter of Wilhite: Woolbright v. Wilhite, handed down September 10, 2013, by the COA, 18-year-old Lacey Wilhite had been severely injured in a catastrophic collision with a drunk driver. Her mother, Celeste Sloan, who had custody, filed a petition to be appointed guardian. Lacey’s father, Rodford, with whom Lacey had been living for several years before the accident, in response filed a petition to be appointed guardian and for custody.
The chancellor appointed Rodford as guardian, and authorized him to accept the insurance company’s tender of policy limits in the amount of $100,000. The judge also approved the contract of the attorney for Rodford for a 25% contingent fee. More about that attorney’s fee in a bit.
On appeal, Sloan’s lawyer argued that, even though her contract with Sloan had not been approved by the court, she had a reasonable expectation of compensation from the child’s estate, based on quantum meruit. The COA disagreed. Beginning at ¶11, Judge Fair explained:
Sloan may have been a “natural guardian” of Lacey under Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-13-1 (Rev. 2004), but the chancery court is the “superior guardian.” See Carpenter v. Berry, 58 So. 3d 1158, 1163 (¶19) (Miss. 2011). As the Mississippi Supreme Court detailed in Mississippi State Bar Association v. Moyo, 525 So. 2d 1289, 1293-96 (Miss. 1988), there are three ways to bind a minor in a settlement: (1) removal of the disability of minority, (2) the formal appointment of a guardian, and (3) the chancery court’s approval, without a guardianship, when the claim is worth $25,000 or less (Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-13-211 (Supp. 2012)). It stands to reason that a parent who has no authority to bind her daughter’s estate in a settlement cannot bind the estate to an attorney’s fee contract, particularly when such a contract would have to be, but was not, approved by the chancery court. See UCCR 6.12. In Carpenter, 58 So. 3d at 1163 (¶19) (citation omitted & emphasis added), the supreme court reiterated its longtime holding that:
Infants and persons of unsound mind are disabled under the law to act for themselves. Long ago it became the established rule for the court of chancery to act as the superior guardian for all persons under such disability. This inherent and traditional power and protective duty is made complete and irrefragable by the provisions of our present state constitution. It is not competent for the Legislature to abate the said powers and duties or for the said court to omit or neglect them. It is the inescapable duty of the said court and[/]or the chancellor to act with constant care and solicitude towards the preservation and protection of the rights of infants and persons non compos mentis. The court will take nothing as confessed against them; will make for them every valuable election; will rescue them from faithless guardians, designing strangers, and even from unnatural parents, and in general will and must take all necessary steps to conserve and protect the best interest of these wards of the court. The court will not and cannot permit the rights of an infant to be prejudiced by a waiver, or omission or neglect or design of a guardian, or of any other person, so far as within the power of the court to prevent or correct. All persons who deal with guardians or with courts in respect to the rights of infants are charged with the knowledge of the above principles, and act to the contrary thereof at their peril.
See also Union Chevrolet Co. v. Arrington, 162 Miss. 816, 826-27, 138 So. 593, 595 (1932) (original source) …
You can take away from that that there are no shortcuts in obtaining a release that is binding on a minor. You can either: (1) get the disabilities of minority removed, which you will likely find to be a hard sell; or (2) have a guardian appointed, who can petition the court to approve an on-the-record minor’s settlement; or (3) present the matter as a minor’s settlement not requiring a guardianship, if the settlement amount is below the statutory amount and the chancellor finds it to be in the child’s best interest. That’s it. The parents can not bind the child acting in their capacities as parents without court approval.
Another feature of this case is that both parents hired their own attorneys to take legal action for the benefit of Lacey before a guardianship was established, and neither had their contract approved in advance by the court. The trial court rejected Ms. Sloan’s attorney’s contract, which called for 33 1/3% of the settlement, and approved that of Mr. Wilhite for 25% The chancellor also reduced Sloan’s attorney’s quantum meruit claim to $2,500, despite that she claimed to have invested 125 hours in the case. The COA affirmed
You can read the COA’s rationale for yourself. What is important here is that you appreciate that when you go out on a limb without court approval in a case such as this, you run the risk of recovering nothing or a greatly reduced fee. UCCR 6.12 clearly lays out what is required. Here it is, broken down point by point for clarity:
- Every petition by a fiduciary or attorney for the allowance of attorney’s fees for services rendered shall set forth the same facts as required in Rule 6.11, touching his compensation, and if so, the nature and effect thereof.
- If the petition be for the allowance of fees for recovering damages for wrongful death or injury, or other claim due the estate, the petition shall show the total amount recovered, the nature and extent of the service rendered and expense incurred by the attorney, and the amount if any, offered in compromise before the attorney was employed in the matter.
- In such cases, the amount allowed as attorney’s fees will be fixed by the Chancellor at such sum as will be reasonable compensation for the service rendered and expense incurred without being bound by any contract made with any unauthorized persons.
- If the parties make an agreement for a contingent fee the contract or agreement of the fiduciary with the attorney must be approved by the Chancellor.
- Fees on structured settlements shall be based on the “present cash value” of the claim. [Emphasis added]
Before you go crashing off into a case involving a minor’s interest, think through what you are being called on to do, and cover your bases. If you don’t, you might find, much to your chagrin, that you have donated a lot of free work to the youngster.
An Archaicism that Needs to be Fixed
August 13, 2014 § 1 Comment
If one is to follow the statutory scheme as it currently stands in estate matters, here is what one would do after opening an estate:
- Unless waived by the court, warrants of appraisal issue under seal of the court “commanding three or more discreet persons not related to the deceased or interested in the estate” to make inventory and appraisal. Any three or more of the appointees may act. The warrant commands the appraisers to set aside the exempt property and one year’s support “and tuition” for those eligible (MCA 91-7-109 and -111).
- The form of the warrant is provided in MCA 91-7-113.
- The appraisers must report to the court the personal property that is exempt, and “set it apart” to the widow and/or children of the decedent. The court may allow or disallow all or part of the report, with instructions to the appraisers (MCA 91-7-117 and -137).
- Defaulting appraisers may be fined.
- MCA 91-7-93 requires executors and administrators, within 90 days of appointment, to inventory the money of and debts due to the decedent.
I could actually go on, but let me stop here and ask: Who has ever heard of an estate being administered in that fashion in any of our lifetimes?
Most attorneys ask to waive appraisement and work with the fiduciary to arrive at an inventory for the court to approve.
The problem is that, other than the cumbersome 3-headed appraisal procedure stated above, there is no clearcut procedure to determine the exempt property that passes outside the estate. Yes, I said outside the estate. That’s because MCA 91-7-117 specifically states that title of the widow and children to the exempt property vests in them by operation of law upon death of the decedent. DeBaum v. Hulett Undertaking Co., 169 Miss. 488, 153 So. 513, 515 (1934).
I think that Title 91, Chapter 7, needs to be rewritten — NOT to import some exotic provisions from other states that would drastically change our Mississippi probate practice — but rather to eliminate some of these archaic, unused, impractical provisions that clutter and confuse our code, and replace them with simple, clear, direct statements that reflect how lawyers and judges actually do business in these matters.
These points at a minimum need to be addressed:
- The code needs to charge the fiduciary with the responsibility to identify and report to the court the exempt property, and to obtain the court’s ruling as soon as possible after opening the estate.
- The 3-appraiser procedure needs to be abolished. When it was adopted in 1848, I am sure it was quite nifty. Today, it would cost a fortune to hire three disinterested persons to investigate the belongings of an individual, determine values, and report to the court not only the items and their values, but determine what is exempt and recommend a year’s support.
A previous post dealing with exempt property and estates is at the link.
Blood Money
July 30, 2014 § 6 Comments
Many years ago I represented two young children whose mother had died while on an ill-fated catfishing trip to the flooded Lost Horse Creek in northeast Lauderdale County. She had been invited on the outing by her husband, who only the week before had taken out $400,000 in life insurance policies on her life, with himself as sole beneficiary. The policies had double-indemnity provisions for accidental death.
The husband claimed that the wife had slipped in the rain-soaked mud, fell into the creek and must have hit her head on a tree limb, knocking her unconscious and either killing her by the blow, or she drowned.
The coroner disagreed, finding that she had suffered more than one heavy, crushing blow to the back of the skull with a blunt object — an injury that was inconsistent with the circumstances the husband claimed — and there was no water in her lungs, indicating that she was dead before she fell in the creek.
The husband was indicted for murder, and the proof at trial included that he had offered a local bar owner $5,000 to kill her some ten months before he himself did the deed. The husband was convicted of murder. His appeal was unsuccessful. Hammond v. State, 465 So.2d 1031 (Miss. 1985).
I filed a petition in chancery court to have the husband disqualified from recovering the insurance proceeds, which had been interpled by the insurance companies. He contested the matter, but the chancellor ruled that the proceeds were property of the woman’s estate, the only heirs of whom were the two sons. There was no appeal.
The law of Mississippi is that a life insurance beneficiary who wilfully takes the insured’s life may not recover the insurance benefits. Gholson v. Smith, 210 Miss. 28, 29, 48 So.2d 603, 604 (Miss. 1950). In the case of Dill v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 797 So.2d 858, 866 (Miss. 2001), the court ruled that the standard of proof is by a preponderance.
The same rule applies in inheritance.
In the recent case of Young v. O’Beirne, adm’r of the Estate of Young, decided by the COA on June 3, 2014, the COA found that Mr. Young, who indisputably had murdered Mrs. Young, could not have any interest in her estate, based on MCA 91-1-25, which provides that “[i]f any person wilfully cause[s] or procure[s] the death of another in any way, he shall not inherit the property, real or personal, of such other; but the same shall descend as if the person so causing or procuring the death had predeceased the person whose death he perpetrated.”
A similar code section is found at MCA 91-5-33, which provides that a person who has wilfully caused or procured the death of another person shall not take any real or personal property of the decedent under any will, testament or codicil, and as to any such devise the testator is deemed to have died intestate.
Note that a plea of guilty to manslaughter, standing alone, is not sufficient to support a finding that would preclude inheritance under either statute. Hood v. VanDevender, 661 So.2d 198 (Miss. 1995). That would not preclude the chancery court, however, from finding that the act rose to the level of wilfullness that would invoke either statute, because the killing need not amount to murder, but the proof only needs to establish that it was wilful and without justification in law. Henry v. Toney, 211 Miss. 93, 50 So.2d 921 (1951).
The courtly Mr. Tom Ethridge, who taught equity and chancery practice at Ole Miss Law School years ago when such things were still worthy subjects of legal academia, used to say, “Equity means do right.” Do right. That is behind these laws. I recently told a young lawyer that if you’re uncertain about what the law might be in a given situation, figure out what the most honest, forthright thing to do might be, and you’ll probably be pretty close to what the law requires. Just do right.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 