Opinion ID: 1802346
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the Tallahatchie County Estate was void ab initio

Text: ¶ 31. We now turn to whether opening the Estate in Tallahatchie County was void ab initio. The Defendants argue that opening the Estate in Tallahatchie County and the appointment of Price in Tallahatchie County are void, not voidable. The basis of the Defendants' assertion is that the statutory requirements in regard to venue for some chancery matters are exclusive, meaning that the requirements are jurisdictional and, thus, these types of cases must be dismissed and cannot be transferred if filed in the wrong county. In addition, the Defendants argue that in those chancery matters where venue is exclusive, or in other words jurisdictional, any matters filed in a wrong county are void ab initio and any orders of the chancery court are void ab initio due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here, the Defendants argue that this estate matter is one of these instances where venue is jurisdictional. The Defendants analogize the divorce statute with the estate statute. ¶ 32. Indeed, this Court has held that the divorce statute prescribing where a divorce suit must be filed goes to subject matter jurisdiction and not mere venue. Price v. Price, 202 Miss. 268, 32 So.2d 124 (1947). In Slaughter v. Slaughter, 869 So.2d 386, 391 (Miss.2004), this Court held: [I]n Price v. Price, 202 Miss. 268, 271-72, 32 So.2d 124, 125 (1947), [we] stated that the statute prescribing where the suit must be instituted is not a mere statute of venue that may be waived but one of jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit. Id., at 271-72, 32 So.2d at 125 (citing Amis in Divorce in Mississippi, Sec. 240). See also Carter v. Carter, 278 So.2d 394, 396 (Miss.1973) (referencing a review of authorities which state in effect that a divorce suit brought in the wrong county goes to the jurisdiction, and is not a mere matter of venue). This Court has held that in divorce cases if venue is not proper then the action should be dismissed, not transferred to the correct county. Slaughter, 869 So.2d at 391. See also Price, 32 So.2d at 126; Cruse v. Cruse, 202 Miss. 497, 500, 32 So.2d 355, 355 (1947). However, this Court has held that if a court that [sic] has no subject matter jurisdiction in a case the judgment is rendered void, not voidable. Id. ¶ 33. This Court has limited case law on estate matters. In Day v. Hart, 232 Miss. 516, 517, 99 So.2d 656, 657 (1958), this Court addressed whether the Lincoln County Chancery Court had jurisdiction to grant administration under the county where the intestate died pursuant to Section 525 of the Code of 1942. Miss.Code Ann § 91-7-63(1) is derived from Section 525 of the Code of 1942. Day, a Louisiana resident, and Hall, a Mississippi resident, were killed in a traffic collision caused by Day in Lincoln County. Id. at 657. Hall's parents petitioned the Lincoln County Chancery Court seeking the appointment of an administrator for the estate of Day in order to bring suit in Mississippi. Id. at 658. This Court held that the Lincoln County Chancery Court had jurisdiction to grant administration on the estate of Day. Id. at 660. This Court held: Under said Section 525 of the Code of 1942 jurisdiction to grant administration is conferred upon the chancery court of the county in which the decedent died. The statute is clear and unambiguous and must be construed to mean what it says. A similar statute is not unknown to other jurisdictions. Id. at 660. (Emphasis in the original). Clearly, then Miss.Code Ann. § 91-7-63(1) is jurisdictional in nature. Section 91-7-63(1) authorizes three possible places to open an estate, those being (1) the chancery court of the county where the intestate had a fixed place of residence at the time of death; (2) if there was no fixed place of residence, then the chancery court of the county where (a) the intestate died, or (b) where his personal property or some part may be. ¶ 34. The Estate argues that Tallahatchie County did not lack jurisdiction because Boles was a resident in that county prior to entering the nursing home. In Issue II, Boles was determined to be a resident of Leflore County, therefore this argument is without merit. The Estate argues that this Court's holding in Halford, 223 Miss. 786, 79 So.2d 264, contradicts the Defendants' position. In Halford, this Court affirmed the chancellor's decision to allow a transfer of a will contest case to the county with the proper venue. Id. at 269. Therefore, the Estate contends that the chancellor in the case sub judice correctly transferred the Estate from Tallahatchie to Leflore County. ¶ 35. Halford is distinguishable from the case before the Court today. Importantly, the issue of jurisdiction was not raised or considered by this Court in Halford. Later, this Court in Day, previously discussed above, determined that the language of Section 525 of the Miss.Code of 1942, from which Miss.Code Ann. § 91-7-63(1) is derived and contained almost identical statutory language, is jurisdictional. Therefore, we find like the contested divorce statute, the estate statute prescribing where an estate must be filed goes to subject matter jurisdiction and not mere venue. See Price v. Price, 202 Miss. 268, 32 So.2d 124. Following the logic of the divorce statute, if venue is not proper as to an estate, then the action should be dismissed, not transferred to the correct county. Slaughter, 869 So.2d at 391. ¶ 36. Accordingly, we find like the divorce statute Miss.Code Ann. § 93-5-11, the estate statute at issue here, Miss.Code Ann. § 91-7-63(1), is an exclusive venue statute, making it jurisdictional in nature. Price petitioned to open the Estate in Tallahatchie County. The facts surrounding Boles's death met none of the requirements for filing a petition in Tallahatchie County. Boles resided, died, and had her only potential asset, a lawsuit against the nursing facility, in Leflore County. Therefore, Tallahatchie County never had subject matter jurisdiction in the Estate and opening the Estate and appointing Price as administratrix was void, not voidable. Further, the transfer from Tallahatchie County to Leflore County was improper. The transfer from Tallahatchie County to Leflore County failed to cure the underlying jurisdictional problem with this case. The Tallahatchie County Chancery Court had no subject matter jurisdiction to either open an estate or appoint Price as administratrix. The chancellor should have dismissed, not transferred, the Tallahatchie County Chancery Court estate case, and Price should have filed a new petition in Leflore County.