Court Opinion

ID: 9773154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:38:33.709699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:50.478717
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING SEPTEMBER 17, 1990 794 S.W.2d 611 Petition for Rehearing; granted to the extent earlier opinion is modified. Homer Tanner, for appellant. Hilburn, Calhoon, Harper, Pruniski & Calhoun, Ltd., by: Scott E. Daniel, for appellee Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Hardin, Lesson & Dawson, by: L. Leslie Evitts III, for appellee Superior Federal Bank. Steele Hays, Justice. By petition for rehearing appellee, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Merrill Lynch) points out that our opinion of July 16,1990, orders Merrill Lynch to pay $33,212.48, plus interest, to the estate of Dorothy Edwards; that while $33,212.48 represented the original investment in 1973, its current balance is less than that due to subsequent withdrawals — a fact the Chancellor recognized in her final order of November 15,1989, by virtue of the following provision: That the decree of this court rendered on August 30, 1989, incorrectly ascertains the amount in controversy on deposit at MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH to be the sum of Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred Twelve and 48/ioo ($33,212.48) Dollars and that this error shall be corrected at a later date to reflect the actual amount now on deposit at MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, which includes undistributed dividends subsequent to the date of death of DOROTHY EDWARDS, deceased. Merrill Lynch further asserts that all parties to this litigation have recognized the fluctuating value of the Merrill Lynch account and that it would be necessary to liquidate the fund on the open market with attendant fees and expenses before a final balance could be determined. Appellant concurs in the petition of Merrill Lynch. The petition for rehearing is granted to the extent that our original opinion is modified accordingly and the case is remanded to the trial court for such further orders as may be necessary to determine the correct amount due the appellant from appellee, Merrill Lynch. Newbern, J., not participating.