Case Title: Bell v. Mitchell

Citation: 592 So. 2d 528

Docket Number: 90-CA-0769

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1991-12-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
592 So. 2d 528 (1991) John E. BELL v. Janice M. MITCHELL, Executrix of the Estate of Ellis M. Mitchell, Deceased. No. 90-CA-0769. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 31, 1991. *529 Travis T. Vance, Jr., Vicksburg, for appellant. Geoffrey C. Morgan, Wheeless Beanland Shappley & Bailess, Vicksburg, for appellee. Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER and SULLIVAN, JJ. SULLIVAN, Justice, for the Court: The question to be answered in this case is what is the effect of a legislative amendment to the probate claim statute enacted while this litigation was before the court? Janice M. Mitchell was issued Letters Testamentary as Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of Ellis M. Mitchell, Deceased, on January 8, 1990, in the Chancery Court of Warren County, Mississippi. Notice to Creditors was published. On January 25, 1990, John E. Bell presented his claim for probate to the Warren County Chancery Clerk. The claim was based on a promissory note executed by the decedent and payable to Bell in the principal sum of $10,800.00 with credits of $800.00 shown on the reverse side of the note. Bell took the original note to the clerk's office and said: The clerk and deputy clerk do not recall if Bell presented the original note when filing the claim, but Bell's testimony to this effect is uncontroverted. It is not disputed that a photostatic duplicate of the original note was filed and left with the deputy clerk. An affidavit form for attachment to the claim was completed by Bell in the presence of the deputy clerk. In completing the affidavit, the words "Bell's Music Co., Inc., John E. Bell, President" were inserted in the blank spaces left for designation of the affiant and the form was signed by "John E. Bell, President." The affidavit was completed by the deputy clerk who inserted language showing that the claim was "... probated and allowed and registered on the 25th of January, 1990." The claim was then docketed in the claim registry of the court. When the 90 day period of time for probation of claims had expired, the executrix filed her formal objection to Bell's probated claim. The reasons for the executrix's objection were recited as: On May 24, 1990, Bell, individually and as President of Bell's Music Co., Inc., moved to amend his claim to reflect that he, individually, is the creditor to whom the estate is indebted. On May 25, 1990, the motion was heard by the Chancery Court and evidence was adduced. At the close of Bell's motion, the executrix moved "... for a directed verdict." The court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: The chancellor entered an order denying Bell's motion to amend, and later entered an order denying Bell's probated claim. Bell appeals to this court asserting as his sole issue that the Chancery Court erred in refusing to allow amendment of the affidavit to the claim, registered, probated, and allowed by the clerk. Intertwined in this issue is the question of Bell's fulfillment of obligations imposed by Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-149 (Supp. 1990). Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-149 (Supp. 1990), in pertinent part says: Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-151 (Supp. 1990), in pertinent part says: Bell admits the inadvertence set forth in the affidavit in the places left for affiant's name and claims that he did not have assistance of counsel and relied on the clerk. Bell further claims that the note, a photostatic copy of which was filed as evidence of the claim, showed that the debt was owed to Bell by the decedent, and the statute authorizes amendment under these circumstances. The executrix states that the affidavit may not be amended because: (a) the affidavit was made by one other than the creditor and is therefore "insufficient and amounts to no affidavit at all;" and (b) the filing by Bell of the photostatic copy of the note instead of the original or a "certified copy" of the original was a fatal non-compliance of § 91-7-149. The executrix relies on Merchants & Manufacturers' Bank of Ellisville v. Fox, 165 Miss. 833, 147 So. 789 (1933), as authority for her position. In Fox, the bank filed for probate original notes executed by the decedent and subsequently withdrew them and attempted to comply with the probate statute by leaving copies with the clerk. The Fox court held that the clerk's failure to attach his certificate to the copies stating that they were in fact true copies authorized the denial of the bank's motion after expiration of time allowed for probate to allow the clerk to make proper certificate of the copies and to sign his name to the probate and allowance of the claim. In Central Optical Merchandising Co., Inc. v. Lowe, 249 Miss. 61, 160 So. 2d 673 (1964), we stated: 160 So. 2d at 678-80. The substantial compliance rule of Central Optical was followed in Stuart C. Irby Company v. Patton, Administrator, 301 So. 2d 845 (Miss. 1974). See also, Annotation, Amendment of Claim Against Decedent's Estate After Expiration of Time for Filing Claims, 56 A.L.R.2d 627 (1957). Strict compliance with statutes relating to probate of claims against estates so as to defeat a just claim is no longer a controlling principle of interpretation. See Williams v. Mason, 556 So. 2d 1045, 1050 (Miss. 1990); Ethridge v. Estate of Paul, 196 So. 2d 530, 532 (Miss. 1967). In 1991, pending appeal of this case, § 91-7-149 was amended by the legislature to delete the requirement of filing the original promissory note. The amended statute now provides in pertinent part: It is apparent that the actions of Bell complied with the amended statute. What is the effect of the amended statute in resolving the present issue? When cases are in the bosom of this Court and there is involved a statute that is modified prior to a final decision of this Court, we take that modification into consideration. Parker v. Bailey, 437 So. 2d 33 (Miss. 1983). In City of Clarksdale v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 556 So. 2d 1056, 1057 (Miss. 1990), we held that because the City's right of eminent domain was a creature of statute under well settled law, an amendment to the statute should be treated as though it had been a part of the original statute. In City of Clarksdale, we further said: 556 So. 2d at 1057. In Deposit Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. v. Williams, 193 Miss. 432, 9 So. 2d 638 (1942), we were presented with the question of the effect of an amendment to our usury statute on transactions occurring prior to the amendment. In holding that the amendment applied retrospectively, we stated: 9 So. 2d at 639. That same rule was followed in Stone v. Independent Linen Service Co., 212 Miss. 580, 55 So. 2d 165, 168 (1951). Remedial statutes relating to remedies which do not take away vested rights but only operate in furtherance of the remedy do not come within the general rule against retrospective operation of statutes. 73 Am.Jur.2d, Statutes, § 354 (1974). Just as there is no vested right in usury laws, there is no vested right in probate laws, particularly when the right asserted is a right to defeat a just debt. We are inclined to the view that the executrix here has no vested right in this case. In Rippe v. City of Rochester, 57 A.D.2d 723, 395 N.Y.S.2d 556, 557 (1977), the New York court addressed the effect of a statutory amendment enacted subsequent to the trial court's order. In applying the amendment retroactively, the New York court stated: We are of the opinion therefore that the 1991 legislative amendment of § 91-7-149 should be given retroactive operation and applied to this case. The executrix, by cross-appeal, seeks to affirm disallowance by the trial court of Bell's claim on the merits. The chancellor's order, however, hinges on affirmance of its decision denying Bell's motion to amend the affidavit to probate. We hold that the chancellor should have allowed the amendment attempted by Bell. We, therefore, remand this case to the Chancery Court of Warren County, Mississippi, for a determination of the claim of Bell on its merits. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, PITTMAN, BANKS and McRAE, JJ., concur.