Opinion ID: 1874238
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: proximate cause of injury

Text: In considering this factor, there are two questions which must be addressed. First, did Switzer's mistake in omitting the windfall profit taxes proximately cause an injury, and secondly, did the Estate actually suffer an injury? The first agreement entered into by the parties would have allowed Charlena to pay to the heirs the sum of $100,956.00. This sum is derived from the figures in the schedule prepared by Switzer (net oil income, reflecting gross production minus severance, windfall profit, and fiduciary income taxes, through October 31, 1983 in the amount of $152,776.00 minus federal and Louisiana estate taxes of $56,320.00 plus $4,500.00 in interest which was not reflected on the schedule). The Executrix was authorized to withhold only the tax liability reflected on the schedule. Even though Switzer omitted the 1982 windfall profit taxes from the schedule, the Executrix was held to the terms of the agreement into which the schedule with the omission was incorporated by reference. She was required to pay to the heirs the amount of income reflected on the schedule and an extra $15,000.00 for possible liability of the 1982 windfall profit taxes. In other words, the evidence presented by the plaintiffs was sufficient to show that the extra $15,000.00 that the Estate was required to pay was a direct and proximate result of Switzer's omission. And while the Estate would have suffered no loss if the money had been paid back into the Estate, that sum was eventually paid to the heirs. The judge gave no reason for granting the directed verdict. However, the questions he asked throughout the trial indicated that he had problems with the alleged loss of $15,000.00 in that there had been no payment of 1982 windfall profit taxes as of the date of the trial and that by law, taxes are supposed to be paid out of the residuary estate. It is true that the law of this State is that in the absence of a contrary provision in a will, resort must first be had to the personal property in the payment of debts and expenses of the estate including federal estate taxes, before resort may be had to real property. Estate of Torian v. First National Bank of Memphis, 321 So.2d 287, 292 (Miss. 1975). However, by the terms of the first agreement between the heirs and the Estate, the Executrix, and the residuary beneficiaries, the windfall profit taxes were to be withheld from the oil income. An agreement such as this is binding if it is supported by consideration. Forebearance to sue or institute some other legal proceeding can constitute consideration. Daniel v. Snowdoun Association, 513 So.2d 946, 949 (Miss. 1987). Here, there was consideration since each side gave up an opportunity to institute legal proceedings against the other with regard to the will. The evidence of the plaintiffs could support a verdict for the plaintiffs in the amount of $15,000.00. Reasonable jurors could have believed that the $15,000.00 charged to the Estate was a direct and proximate result of negligence by Switzer.