Title: Matter of Estate of Davis

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

510 So. 2d 798 (1987) In the Matter of the ESTATE of Mary Belle Davis, Deceased. Linda Mattox Sims and Henry E. Mattox v. Hallie S. STENNIS, Thomas L. Stennis, II, Individually, and Thomas L. Stennis, II, Executor. No. 57062. Supreme Court of Mississippi. July 29, 1987. Jack B. Weldy, Hattiesburg, for appellants. W. Raymond Hunter, Bryant, Stennis & Colingo, Gulfport, for appellees. Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and DAN M. LEE and GRIFFIN, JJ. GRIFFIN, Justice, for the Court: This case, concerning the admission of a will to probate, comes to the Court from the Chancery Court of Kemper County, which dismissed an action, contesting the will, pursuant to M.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). We affirm. On September 19, 1969, Mary Belle Davis executed a writing, styled "Last Will and Testament." Likewise, on June 16, 1973 and February 11, 1978, she executed codicils to her will. On November 1, 1982, Davis died at age eighty-eight. On January 24, 1983, Betty Eldridge, Kemper County Chancery Clerk, admitted the will and codicils to probate, signing the decree, Thereafter, Eldridge issued Letters Testamentary to Thomas L. Stennis, II. The chancery court was then in vacation. On June 13, 1983, again in session, Chancellor Prisock entered an order, which stated, On May 6, 1985, Linda Mattox Sims, Davis' great-niece, and Henry E. Mattox, Davis' great-nephew, brought suit against Thomas L. Stennis, individually and as the executor, and Hallie S. Stennis, both of whom inherited from Davis through her nephew, Sam Davis Stennis, Thomas' father and Hallie's husband. In this complaint, Sims and Mattox allege that Davis was mentally incompetent when making the will, which resulted from Sam Davis and Thomas Stennis' undue influence. On August 20, 1985, Chancellor Prisock dismissed the cause of action, pursuant to M.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), finding it barred by Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-23 (1972), which states, Appellants argue that when the chancery clerk signed the chancellor's name to the decree, it was void. In short, they maintain that the chancery clerk engaged in a judicial, not ministerial, act. Therefore, the will was not probated, and the statute of limitations did not run. The chancellor then was unable to ratify, later, an act which previously was null and void. In fact, the chancery clerk was acting in accordance with constitutional and legislative provisions, when she admitted the will to probate. Miss. Const. Art. 6, § 168 states that the "Legislature shall provide by law what duties shall be performed during vacation by clerks of the circuit and chancery courts, subject to approval of the court." Miss. Code Ann. § 9-5-141 (Supp. 1986), cataloging these duties, permits the clerk to "take the proof of wills, admit wills to probate, in common form, [and] grant letters testamentary... ." This is consistent with the facts of this case. Also, Miss. Code Ann. § 9-5-151 (Supp. 1986), reads, Therefore, the chancellor's order, ratifying the clerk's actions, validated the decree, which admitted Davis' will to probate. Significantly, there is no legislative mandate concerning the format utilized by the chancery clerk when admitting a will to probate. There is then no single form which the chancery clerk must follow. Cf. Miss. Code Ann. § 9-5-149 (Supp. 1986). (Minutes of proceedings before clerk). In Davany v. Koon, 45 Miss. 71, 74 (1871), this Court stated, "If an official act comes into question, the presumption is in favor of its propriety and validity, unless a departure from or violation of law is apparent on the face of the transaction." Here, there was none. Similarly, *800 15A Am.Jur.2d Clerks of Court § 23 (1976) reads, "The mere fact that the clerk used superfluous words in filing papers would not render his acts void." Moreover, the appellants were not ignorant of their rights, prior to the statute of limitations' expiration. Indeed, on August 10, 1983, Thomas L. Stennis wrote Melvin T. Sims, Jr., both Linda Mattox Sims' husband and an attorney, regarding the estate. On October 10, 1983, Sims responded, stating, "I have contacted attorneys that I consider expert in this area, and all agree that there seems to be a real possibility for successful challenge." Nevertheless, the appellants failed to file suit for an additional nineteen months. Importantly, equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights. Southwest Mississippi Electric Power Association v. Harragill, 254 Miss. 460, 468, 182 So. 2d 220, 223 (1966), Hoskins v. Howard, 214 Miss. 481, 497, 59 So. 2d 263, 269 (1952). See also, V. Griffith, Mississippi Chancery Practice § 41 (1950) ("Those who are diligent find equity always ready to extend just aid, but the slothful are not favored."). Consequently, the Court finds the chancery clerk's actions within the contemplation of § 9-5-141, and the appellants' subsequent attempt to contest the will unseasonable. AFFIRMED. WALKER, C.J., ROY NOBLE LEE and HAWKINS, P.JJ., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ., concur. SULLIVAN, J., not participating.