Blakeney v. Blakeney, 81-4239
| Decision Date | 17 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-4239,81-4239 |
| Parties | Dan Henry BLAKENEY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bernice BLAKENEY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Charles O. Moore, Jackson, Miss., Wm. Henry Sanders, Jena, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Crymes G. Pittman, Karen H. Spencer, Jackson, Miss., John Raymond Tullos, Raleigh, Miss., for defendants-appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for Southern District of Mississippi.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, RUBIN and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
Dan Henry Blakeney and other heirs of James Blakeney appeal from the district court's order dismissing their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
James Blakeney, a resident of Smith County, Mississippi, died testate on January 3, 1967. Later that month his will was admitted to probate in the Chancery Court of that county. Creditors of James Blakeney, whose interests were secured by a deed of trust on land owned by the decedent, filed a proof of claim with the estate and sought confirmation of their title to the land. A final decree quieting title was entered in January 1969.
On February 4, 1981, six heirs of James Blakeney filed suit in the United States District Court. They claimed that the judgment of probate was void because Blakeney had lacked capacity to make a will and because concealed fraud vitiated the probate proceedings. They also claimed that the proceedings filed by the creditors were void because all interested persons had not been made parties to the proceeding, that the executors had been negligent in their administration of the estate and that Catherine Hair, Blakeney's widow, had a dower right to the property claimed by the creditors.
The district court found that because the matters raised by the plaintiffs concerned the probate of an estate it lacked jurisdiction to hear their claims. Alternatively, the court found that their suit was barred by the statute of limitations and collateral estoppel and that the suit should be dismissed for failure to join an indispensable party. Since we affirm the primary holding, we do not reach any alternative ground. The plaintiffs claim that the court's decision on the alternative grounds may be urged against them if they advance the same claims in state proceedings. Because, however, the district court's determination that it lacked jurisdiction was correct, it did not have the power to decide the alternative grounds and that portion of its judgment is accordingly vacated.
Even in cases involving more than ten thousand dollars and diversity of citizenship, courts of the United States have consistently recognized that they may lack jurisdiction to adjudicate some probate claims. See Akin v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaspard v. U.S.
...We do not attempt to resolve this issue since we are without jurisdiction over the FTCA claim in any event. See Blakeney v. Blakeney, 664 F.2d 433 (5th Cir.1981) (per curiam).10 We note additionally that the record on appeal shows no evidence that Mrs. Gaspard or Mrs. Sheehan filed administ......
-
Bennett Industries, Inc. v. Laher
...Defendants would violate due process. The Court, therefore, is precluded from ruling as to Defendants' other claims. Blackeney v. Blackeney, 664 F.2d 433 (5th Cir.1981). Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice at Plaintiff's SO ORDERED. 1 Compa......
-
Lemery v. Ford Motor Co.
...the plaintiff is merely seeking adjudication of a claim between the parties.'" Breaux, 254 F.3d at 536 (quoting Blakeney v. Blakeney, 664 F.2d 433, 434 (5th Cir.1981)). Unfortunately, there is remarkably little case law that is analogous to the precise situation before the Court. The majori......
-
Moser v. Pollin
...not have jurisdiction over any state law claim that rests upon a challenge to the validity of a will instrument. See Blakeney v. Blakeney, 664 F.2d 433, 434 (5th Cir.1981); Mich. Tech Fund v. Century Nat'l Bank of Broward, 680 F.2d 736, 739 (11th 5. This contention strikes us as specious in......