Estate of Peacocke v. Peacocke
| Citation | 694 So.2d 1252 |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-CA-00632-SCT,95-CA-00632-SCT |
| Parties | In The Matter of the ESTATE OF Dr. Ivan Lee PEACOCKE, Deceased: Mary Thompson v. Nancille Yvonne Waters PEACOCKE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
Orvis A. Shiyou, Jr., Hattiesburg, for Appellant.
William L. Ducker, Purvis, for Appellee.
Before PRATHER, P.J., and BANKS and SMITH, JJ.
SMITH, Justice, for the Court:
Appellant prays for relief from the judgment of the Lamar County Chancery Court wherein the chancellor allowed a claim of the appellee against the estate of the appellee's ex-husband for future periodic alimony. We reverse and render this decision since an examination of the relevant case law of both Mississippi and Georgia, where the divorce decree was rendered, clearly shows that the general rule is that such a claim for future periodic alimony terminates upon the death of the payor or upon the death or remarriage of the payee. Further, the primary Georgia case upon which the appellee relies was overruled and, seeing no reason to apply law prospectively, we follow the general rule of retroactivity of application of court decisions.
FACTS
In 1972, Dr. Ivan Peacocke and Nancille Peacocke were divorced in DeKalb County, Georgia, where they resided at that time. A settlement decree was entered which was incorporated into the divorce decree stating:
In full and complete settlement of all claims by Wife against Husband for alimony, past, present, or future, Husband agrees to pay and Wife agrees to accept the following sums: ... One Thousand ($1, 000) Dollars per month as alimony for the support and maintenance of the Wife ... to be paid on the 18th day of each and every month thereafter until said Wife shall remarry or die, whichever shall first occur.
On May 2, 1993, Dr. Peacocke died testate in Lamar County. On August 12, 1993, Nancille probated a claim against Dr. Peacocke's estate for the sum of $137,907.76 based upon future alimony payments and her projected life span. On October 10, 1994, the executor of Dr. Peacocke's estate filed a petition to determine the validity of the probated claim, asking the Chancery Court of Lamar County to determine the validity of Nancille's claim. Mary Thompson, a named beneficiary under the will, filed her opposition to the claim filed
by Nancille. On May 17, 1995, the chancellor entered an order allowing the probated claim of Nancille Peacocke, but reserving a ruling as to the amount. Aggrieved, Mary Thompson appealsDISCUSSION OF LAW
Thompson cites one issue for appeal.
WHETHER THE CHANCELLOR ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF AN EX-SPOUSE FOR FUTURE ALIMONY AGAINST THE ESTATE OF A DECEDENT.
Preliminarily, Nancille suggests that Mary Thompson has no standing to appeal the ruling of the chancellor because she did not validly contest the claim until after the chancellor issued his ruling. However, an examination of the record in this case indicates that Mary and other legatees under the will entered a Waiver of Process and Entry of Appearance to Petition to Determine Validity of Probated Claim on January 24, 1995, almost four months before the chancellor issued his ruling on May 17, 1995. Therefore, Mary Thompson does have standing to bring this appeal.
Regardless of whether Mississippi or Georgia law is applied to this action, in the end, the result is the same. There is no substantive difference in Georgia law and Mississippi law on the issue of whether an ex-spouse may assert a claim of alimony against a decedent's estate absent an express provision that alimony shall be paid by the payor's estate after the death of the payor.
In Georgia, there were two lines of cases on the point. Berry v. Berry, 208 Ga. 285, 289, 66 S.E.2d 336, 339 (1951) first enunciated the general rule that a claim to pay periodic alimony is not enforceable against the estate of the payor, but terminates upon the death of the payor or the death or remarriage of the payee. This general rule is the same in Mississippi: periodic alimony cannot be made an obligation of the decedent's estate. It terminates upon the death of the payor or the remarriage of the payee....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Findley v. Findley
...ruling to a 1970 incorporated settlement agreement despite the recipient spouse's reliance on Ramsay v. Sims); Estate of Peacocke v. Peacocke, 694 So.2d 1252, 1254-55 (Miss.1997) (the Supreme Court of Mississippi, faced with a 1972 Georgia divorce decree incorporating a settlement agreement......
-
In re Estate of Hodges, No. 2001-CA-00030-SCT.
...the chancellor relied on the In re Last Will and Testament of Sheppard, 757 So.2d 173 (Miss.2000) and the Matter of the Estate of Peacocke, 694 So.2d 1252 (Miss.1997) in interpreting the parties' agreement. The chancellor determined that the contract designating Joan as the beneficiary of t......
-
Voulters v. Voulters
...of the payor, the obligation cannot be made an obligation of the estate.” Sheppard, 757 So.2d at 175 (¶ 9) (citing In re Estate of Peacocke, 694 So.2d 1252, 1254 (Miss.1997) ). However, in Peacocke the alimony obligation was periodic, unlike here, where it is lump sum. Peacocke, 694 So.2d a......
-
In re Last Will and Testament of Sheppard, 1998-CA-01658-SCT.
...re Estate of Kennington, 204 So.2d 444, 449 (Miss.1967) (citations omitted). ¶ 9. We recently addressed this issue in In re Estate of Peacocke, 694 So.2d 1252 (Miss.1997). In Peacocke, we held that absent an express provision that alimony shall be paid by the payor's estate after the death ......