Title: Smith v. Bank of Clarksdale
Citation: 374 So. 2d 776
Docket Number: 51097
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: August 15, 1979

374 So. 2d 776 (1979) Mary Ann Barbieri SMITH and Laree Elizabeth Smith Maynor v. BANK OF CLARKSDALE, Executor of Estate of Tony Morris, Deceased, et al. No. 51097. Supreme Court of Mississippi. August 15, 1979. Rehearing Denied September 26, 1979. *777 Lomax B. Lamb, Jr., Caldwell &amp; Lewis, Larry O. Lewis, Marks, for appellants. Holcomb, Dunbar, Connell, Merkel, Tollison &amp; Khayat, Charles M. Merkel, Clarksdale, for appellees. Before SMITH, SUGG and COFER, JJ. COFER, Justice, for the Court: The testatrix, Mrs. Angeline A. Morris, departed this life about March 13, 1968, leaving a will with these pertinent provisions: The record shows no action on the surviving husband's part, personally or as executor of her estate, as to the bequest next above to him, or as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the personalty, or the selection of realty that might be necessary fully to satisfy the bequest to him. Instead, on January 21, 1970, he, as executor, filed "Petition for Discharge of Executor," wherein he recites: Thereafter, "the formerly duly appointed, qualified and acting executor of the estate of Angeline A. Morris, deceased," filed "Petition to Reopen Estate and to make Election of Real Estate Comprising Devise in Fee Simple." He recited, in paragraphs (4) and (5), that the maximum amount allowable as marital deduction was $20,033.86, against which were $2,800 of life insurance and $996.94 in personalty, leaving to be made up of realty the amount of $17,036.92. He further alleged: He then prayed that the estate be reopened and that he be authorized to elect specifically four pieces or combinations of realty, which he described in the prayer, which he considered made up of the aggregate deficiency of the $17,036.92, in the bequest. He prayed that the election be recorded in the land records and "that upon compliance with the order of this Court thereasto, he be again discharged." On the same day (September 1, 1972), Chancellor Denton entered a "Decree Reopening Estate of Angeline A. Morris Allowing Election of Real Estate Comprising Devise in Fee Simple and Discharging Executor," wherein he tracked the petition in allegations, finding: The decree then ordered reopening of the estate, and setting aside as the balance of the marital deduction the parcels as had been prayed, and It is to be noted that the reopening, setting aside, and closing of the estate was done all on the same day and with no notice to the interested parties, and these things were done more than two years after the earlier decree closing the estate and discharging the executor. There is a portion of an estate tax return approximating Morris' calculations in his September 2, 1972, petition (Schedule M), and Exhibit 10, State Tax Return, and another report, apparently complete, but without date showing a marital deduction of $71,906.18 (Exhibit F to cross bill and See Schedule O, Recapitulation R. 72). On June 21, 1977, the remainderman Mary Ann Barbieri Smith and children filed a petition "to declare null and void the decree reopening estate allowing election of real estate and for other relief." There was an amendment thereto, adding parties. Defendants answered, setting up affirmative defense of the latter "amended" estate tax form showing marital deduction greatly in excess of that shown in his petition of September 1, 1972, and that the personalty and realty were insufficient to make the marital deduction and all testatrix' estate should be set aside to Morris' estate, he having died before this time, and, by cross bill, prayed removal of petitioner's claims as clouds on Morris' estate's title. *779 Chancellor Ross rendered opinion that the 1970 decree "was incomplete and inadequate and failed to give effect to the will of Angeline A. Morris. Certainly this 1970 decree cannot be considered as a decree of distribution," and that the "September 1972 decree was clearly voidable for want of proper notice to petitioner and her children." His decree, June 21, 1978, entitled "Amended Interlocutory Decree" found as above, and also (as contained in the opinion): The decree granted to petitioners Smith and her children an interlocutory appeal without supersedeas and taxed the costs against them. It is here on interlocutory appeal, and on assignments of error as follows: 1. The court erred in ruling that the January 21, 1970, decree entered in the Estate of Angeline A. Morris discharging the executor was incomplete and inadequate, failed to give effect to the Will of Angeline A. Morris, and cannot be considered as a decree of distribution. 2. The court erred in ruling that the administration of the Estate of Angeline A. Morris now be concluded with a proper Decree of Distribution being entered therein. Somewhere along the way, between September 1, 1972, and the proceedings beginning in June, 1977, Morris (1) adopted as his daughter his wife's niece, Petitioner Mrs. Mary Ann Barbieri Smith, (2) remarried, and (3) departed this life testate. It is considered that, the decree of 1970, being by authority of testatrix' waiver of anything more formal, was sufficient to close the estate and discharge the executor. Nothing further was formally required of him by way of accounting or of the Court, in addition to what was done. After then, there was no estate to be set aside. It had gone, a life estate to Morris, the remainder to petitioners. Perhaps Morris did not know any better, but the record shows he was represented by a very capable solicitor. In Greely v. Houston, 148 Miss. 799, 114 So. 740 (1927), this Court said: 80 Am.Jur.2d Wills, Sections 1601-1603, says: 34 C.J.S. Executors and Administrators § 486, page 371, speaks of notoriety of the acceptance as being necessary. Here, however, by the plain language of Morris' 1972 petition, he had never set aside realty of any amount to himself, and procured reopening of the estate and a decree setting aside what he considered to be sufficient for the supplement. In Powell v. Buchanan, Admx., 245 Miss. 4, 147 So. 2d 110 (1962), where a personal injury claim remained and the statute had not run on suit thereon, closing of the *781 estate was described by this Court as taking place with unfinished business pending. Morris, is, by his own 1970 petition for discharge, estopped to maintain a 1972 right to reopen the estate, for he thereby contradicted his own petition for discharge, which presupposed, as far as he was concerned, that all the business of the estate that he wanted done had been done, and therefore, waived his further claim against the estate. As well stated in the briefs, his election not to select was an election. The estate might be reopened within two years of its closing, under, and for the purposes contained in, Mississippi Code Annotated, Section 91-7-309 (1972), but this remedy is not open to Morris. It is said in Shepherd v. Townsend, 249 Miss. 383, 162 So. 2d 878 (1964), that: By Morris' failure to exercise his right to the supplemental realty and suffering the estate to be closed without such setting aside, he waived his right thereto; he was thereby and therefore precluded from reopening the estate as he undertook to do in 1972, and that both assignments of error are well taken. In this record we have three different situations, inconsistent and incompatible. (1) A complete waiver of any real estate in supplement of the personalty in making up the bequest to Morris, as evidenced by Morris' closing of the estate in 1970; (2) A petition and decree setting aside an amount of realty to bring the whole legacy to the approximate $20,000 amount; and (3) A cross bill by Morris' executor which, if granted by the court, would consume the entire realty of the estate to satisfy the legacy. We conclude that the assignments of error are well taken, and the cause should be reversed and rendered. We note as plain error the assessment of the costs against appellants and reverse this action, also. REVERSED AND RENDERED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P.J.J., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.