Opinion ID: 865012
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: conclusion

Text: ¶8. Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 93-13-253 and Butler, 865 So.2d 1126, we find that the conservatorship in this matter is invalid because notice was not provided to Charles spouse or one other relative. Therefore, we reverse the chancellor’s order appointing King as conservator, and we remand this case to the chancery court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ¶9. REVERSED AND REMANDED. SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., DIAZ, CARLSON, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ., CONCUR. EASLEY, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. COBB, P.J., NOT PARTICIPATING. 2 We note that the trial court actually certified interlocutory appeal “on the limited issue of whether or not the procedural requirements of Miss. Code Ann. § 93-13-281 apply to the establishment of conservatorships, or whether same are governed solely by Miss. Code Ann.§ 93-13253.” However, we find that Miss. Code Ann. § 93-13-253 is dispositive of this issue and that the discussion of any additional claims is unnecessary. Further, while Smith apparently argued the application of section 281 before the trial court, the argument in her brief before this Court only discusses section 281 “by way of analogy.” 4