Opinion ID: 2799381
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: were the conservators’ claims barred by the

Text: APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATION? ¶24. A complaint was filed against Harrison County, Jane Meynardie, Clare Hornsby, and Charliene Roemer on March 23, 2011.11 A separate complaint was filed on October 3, 2011, against only Harrison County, alleging MTCA claims. Those claims were consolidated and then dismissed for failure to obtain permission from the chancery court. The coconservators then filed two separate complaints on June 29, 2012. If the Conservators knew or should have known of tortious conduct on the part of Harrison County and McAdams, i.e., their failure to require an accounting from Pringle, by the January 24, 2008, hearing, when all parties acknowledged that Pringle had not filed an accounting since his being appointed as conservator, the Conservators’ MTCA claims should have been filed by January 24, 2009, and their remaining claims should have been filed by January 24, 2011. As their claims were 11 John McAdams was not named in this suit. 12 not timely filed, the trial court properly dismissed the claims based on the running of the statutes of limitation. ¶25. The Conservators argue that they did not become aware that Pringle was embezzling from Mrs. Pak’s estate until after his death in December 2010. However, the record is fraught with testimony that all interested persons were aware, at the very latest, by January 2008 that Pringle had failed to file an accounting. Additionally, the Conservators and their experts testified that, had Pringle been compelled to file an accounting with requisite bank statements, they would have been made aware that he was embezzling from Pak’s estate. But the decision not to force Pringle to file an accounting was a strategic one. ¶26. In a sworn affidavit dated November 16, 2012, Julie Smith12 testified that she “first experienced problems with Pringle in late 2006. Julie asked both “Meynardie and Roemer about getting another conservator early on and on several occasions subsequent to that. Mrs. Meynardie advised against it.” She also testified that she “tried several times to have Pringle replaced beginning in or about the fall of 2007 because of his rudeness and unresponsiveness. Jane Meynardie said she was not comfortable with trying to have him replaced and refused to move the Court to replace him. Jane said she did not want to make Woody mad because he would cause trouble for us.” She continued to express concerns to Meynardie and Roemer about Pringle’s failure to file accountings but was told that “there was nothing to worry about and that they would handle it.” 12 Julie lived with her mother during a majority of the relevant time period and dealt with Pringle’s office on a regular basis beginning in 2006, when Pringle was appointed conservator of Mrs. Pak’s estate. 13 ¶27. Additionally, on April 14, 2010, Pringle explained to Julie that he needed to write her a reimbursement check on his trust account instead of her mother’s conservatorship account. Julie informed Meynardie, who in turn requested an accounting and bank statements from Pringle. Meynardie sent Pringle another letter, demanding an accounting. ¶28. Julie testified that, in early June 2010, Pringle finally provided Meynardie with a draft accounting, which showed $277,082.58 in the account, and also finally paid deliquent property taxes on some of Mrs. Pak’s property. Meynardie filed a motion addressing Julie’s concerns regarding Pringle’s handling of the estate. The chancellor ordered Pringle to pay certain expenses and attorney’s fees but did not address the issue of Pringle providing an official accounting. Julie testified that she did not know why neither Meynardie nor the chancellor addressed this issue at the hearing. ¶29. In a subsequent affidavit, dated August 14, 2013, Julie testified that “[f]rom the time that we established the conservatorship until Pringle died, our primary focus was on Yong Pak and trying to recoup monies that he had stolen from my mother. He took upwards of $1 million from her.” Julie also testified that she was told by Pringle that he could not file an accounting until he received the requisite financial disclosures from Yong Pak.13 Julie stated that the January 24, 2008, hearing was primarily to compel Yong Pak to provide the missing financial information.“The fact that Pringle had not yet filed an accounting was discussed during this hearing. Based on my conversations with Pringle, I understood that Pringle would file an accounting upon receipt of Mr. Pak’s information.” Julie again reiterated at that time 13 However, the Smiths were able to file an accounting in 2007 without Yong Pak’s information. 14 “the most important issue was finding out what assets Pak had of my mother’s and stopping Pak from dissapation [sic] of my mother’s assets.” ¶30. Jackie Smith was deposed on April 3, 2013. Jackie testified that she probably knew on January 24, 2008, that Pringle had not filed any accountings. She testified that by January 2009 she knew Pringle had not filed an accounting and “this is when it started to get really agitating and we wanted to really, you know, try to get him to do one.” ¶31. Julie Smith was deposed on April 5, 2013. Julie testified that, at the January 2008 hearing, she was aware that the only accounting that had been filed was the one filed by her sister and herself. She testified that both she and Meynardie were aware in 2007 and 2008 that Pringle had not filed an accounting. Julie stated that she, Jackie, and Meynardie had mentioned to Pringle that they wanted to see an accounting and “he said that he was trying to get all the estate – the property, and the cars, and the subpoenas out, and that he couldn’t give an accounting until he knew what was there. So we believed him.” She recalled discussing with Meynardie the desire to have Pringle work with them on the divorce to get it completed, instead of pressing for an accounting and risking having Pringle angry with them. ¶32. Meynardie also was deposed and testified that the chancellor and all attorneys present at the January 2008 hearing knew Pringle had not filed an accounting. Meynardie testified that in, January 2009, she and her clients decided they would not push Pringle to file an accounting at that point. When questioned as to the reasoning behind that decision, she stated that they were “fighting a war with the step daddy. Any time we wanted to do anything, we 15 would have to go into Court, and get an order, and argue with the step daddy over whether it was an appropriate thing to do. And so there certainly were times when I said, this is not the time to go to war with Mr. Pringle because he’s being friendly and supportive of our efforts, vis-a-vi [sic] the stepfather, and we don’t want to pick that fight today. Let’s take care of this and then turn to Mr. Pringle.” She further testified that as of January 22, 2009, she was aware that Pringle had not filed an accounting, as he was legally required to do. ¶33. John Dongieux, the coconservators’ attorney expert, was deposed and testified that “if Mr. Pringle would have filed an accounting in compliance with the rules and the required bank certificates, his embezzlement would have been discovered.” Annette Herrin, the coconservators’ accounting expert, testified that one of the reasons Pringle was able to embezzle money from Mrs. Pak’s accounts was that no efforts were made to compel him to file an accounting. Herrin stated that if Mr. Pringle had been forced to file an accounting, it would have been uncovered that he was stealing from the estate.“If he would have filed an accounting, a proper accounting, the embezzlement would have been discovered earlier.” ¶34. The Conservators’ own experts testified that, had the Conservators sought an accounting, the embezzlement would have been discovered. Julie Smith also testified that, if she had received bank statements, which are required to be attached to the accounting, she would have known as early as 2007 that Pringle was embezzling from her mother’s accounts. The Conservators and their attorney admitted that they had made a strategic decision to focus on the divorce aspect of the conservatorship and did not want to anger Pringle by having the court compel an accounting. 16 ¶35. Harrison County and McAdams argued that the Conservators had made a conscious decision not to require Pringle to file an accounting. They asserted that the transcript from the January 24, 2008, hearing revealed that all interested persons were aware that Pringle had never filed an accounting since his appointment as conservator. Based on the 2008 date, the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Because this issue is dispositive, the remaining issues will not be addressed.