Opinion ID: 1608190
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether the lower court erred as a matter of equity by allowing the conservator with a conflict of interest to the beneficiary under the will to reap substantial benefit from his changing the form of investments in his ward's estate.

Text: ¶ 27. This issue has been incorporated in the discussion above, but it is necessary to reiterate certain points. The Foundation insinuates that the executor committed sins of unclean hands, self-dealing, and various malfeasances. We find no facts to substantiate these accusations. As mentioned above, even the Foundation admits that the record is devoid of any evidence of malicious, fraudulent or any overtly wrongful behavior on the part of Dr. Gandy.... The Foundation asserts, however, that [h]is actions by allowing Mrs. Tribble to alter the form of investments so as to deplete and substantially diminish the bequest to the Mississippi Baptist Foundation was [sic] improper. Again, the Foundation ignores the fact that Bertha initiated through Tribble this investment plan with Trustmark. ¶ 28. It should also be noted that no corporate bonds were ever sold during Gandy's conservatorship. The disposal of any municipal bonds occurred only as the result of maturity or call. With regard to the disposal of municipal bonds, the Estate's expert, Dr. Neely, testified as follows: Mr. Mills: Okay. You mentioned matured or were called. Did you review the documents to make a determination as to whether any of these assets were disposed of prior to maturity or a call by the issuer? Dr. Neely: I did. There were no sales prior to a call or maturity. So, they were all, essentially, forced transactions. Mr. Mills: It's fair to say that they were all redeemed in the normal course of business at the time required? Dr. Neely: That's right. Mr. Mills: No discretion on the part of the estate? Dr. Neely: No, none. ¶ 29. It is undisputed that the residual beneficiaries benefitted from the investment plan initiated by Bertha. Nevertheless, it is clear that Gandy exercised no control over this investment plan and did not act to benefit himself. Tribble testified that [Gandy] and [Tribble] never discussed changing anything. He never directed [her] to make any type of change. Everything continued exactly the way it was before [Bertha] became sick. ¶ 30. The record is devoid of any evidence that Gandy exerted undue influence on Bertha or that he did anything which is deemed improper by this Court. We, therefore, find no merit to this assignment of error.