Johnson v. Howell, 89-CA-0321
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Citation | 592 So.2d 998 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-CA-0321,89-CA-0321 |
| Parties | Keith Ivy JOHNSON, Individually, By and Through Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Roy C. Ivy in His Fiduciary Capacity as Guardian of Keith Ivy Johnson and Roy C. Ivy, Individually v. Hildred HOWELL, Oleta Senter, Lemois Johnson, Beatrice Stephens, Vera Johnson, Vester Johnson, Wiley Lester Johnson, Dr. Dwight A. Johnson, Dr. Charles D. Johnson and Alton Johnson. |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1991 |
Page 998
Protection and Advocacy System, Roy C. Ivy in His
Fiduciary Capacity as Guardian of Keith
Ivy Johnson and Roy C. Ivy,
Individually
v.
Hildred HOWELL, Oleta Senter, Lemois Johnson, Beatrice
Stephens, Vera Johnson, Vester Johnson, Wiley
Lester Johnson, Dr. Dwight A. Johnson,
Dr. Charles D. Johnson and
Alton Johnson.
Page 999
David R. Sparks, Sparks Wicker & Colburn, Tupelo, Shirley Payne, Horn & Payne, Jackson, for appellants.
Thomas A. Pritchard, Tupelo, for appellees.
Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and SULLIVAN and PITTMAN, JJ.
DAN M. LEE, Presiding Justice, for the Court:
This appeal involves two separate and conflicting Itawamba County Chancery Court decrees each of which adjudicated the intestate distribution of Dalton Johnson's estate. While the family tragedy which led to this case makes it all too clear that intestate statutes are imperfect tools for determining how a decedent would have distributed his property had he been able to divine the future, the laws of this State, as well as the principle of res judicata, require that after a matter has been litigated and finally adjudged the parties and their privies are bound by the final judgment, and further litigation is precluded.
The first decree was entered on April 1, 1980, and it provided the property of Dalton Johnson descended to his only child, Keith Ivy Johnson. The second decree was entered on August 31st 1988, and it provided that the property which had passed under the previous decree had been held "in the nature of a trust," and should be distributed to the Appellees. The Appellees or their predecessor in interest were original petitioners bringing the first action, and no appeal was taken from the 1980 decree.
Feeling aggrieved by the 1988 decree, Keith's guardian ad litem, the Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, appeals asserting six assignments of error:
1. Since there was an adjudication that Keith Ivy Johnson did inherit from his parent's estate, by Judgment entered April 7, 1980, that Judgment is final and res judicata as to any claims of competing heirs raised a decade or more out of time.
2. A finding by a jury that Keith Ivy Johnson was not competent to stand trial, his civil commitment, the appointment of a Guardian of his person and his estate, and the dismissal of the two criminal indictments against him due to his mental incompetency, preclude a finding of willfulness such as to bar his inheritance pursuant to Section 91-10-25 Miss.Code Ann. (1972).
3. The Judgment against Keith Ivy Johnson entered August 31, is void for lack of service of process over the ward Keith Ivy Johnson.
4. Since the Guardian's Notice of Appeal was filed out of time, and after the Guardian had confessed the issues in this case and filed his Petition to Disburse the Assets of the Estate of Keith Ivy Johnson, the Guardian's failure of fiduciary duty removes any binding affect of his actions on behalf of the ward, Keith Ivy Johnson.
5. The failure of State officials, including the Administrators of the Mississippi State Hospital at Whitfield, Mississippi, to preserve their claims against the estate of Keith Ivy Johnson will forever bar their assertion of those claims.
6. The claims against the assets of the estate of Keith Ivy Johnson are barred by statute of limitations and laches.
The guardian of Keith's estate and person, Roy C. Ivy, also appeals asserting an additional two assignments of error:
1. The trial court erred in not dismissing the claim of Appellees under the doctrine of laches and/or the appropriate statute of limitations.
2. The trial Court erred in finding that Keith Ivy Johnson willfully killed his parents and is thereby precluded from inheriting from them.
We find the action brought by the Appellees which led to the August 31st 1988 decree was barred both by MISS.CODE ANN. 91-1-31 (1972)--which prohibits collateral attacks upon validly entered decrees ordering distributions of intestate estates--as well as the principle of res judicata, and because the claim is barred, it is not necessary for us to address the other
Page 1000
issues raised in this appeal. Accordingly, the August 31st 1988 decree is reversed and rendered, and in effect, the decree of April 1st 1980 is reinstated.The Facts
Allegedly, on the evening of May 29th 1977, Keith Ivy Johnson (Keith) became inexplicably and irrationally displeased with his parents and decided to kill them, so he drove to his parents' home in Itawamba County, purchasing a pistol along the way, where on May 30th he fatally shot his father, Dalton Johnson (Dalton), and his mother Lorene Ivy Johnson (Lorene). The authorities found Dalton shot three times lying in a reclining chair, and an eyewitness saw Keith shoot Lorene five times in the back as she ran screaming from the house. Though mortally wounded, Dalton survived Lorene for a short time, and both husband and wife died intestate. Keith was their only child. Although Keith was indicted for the murders, he was found to be incompetent to stand trial, and was committed to the Mississippi State Hospital where he is currently a patient undergoing treatment for paranoid schizophrenia.
On October 5th 1977, the Itawamba County Chancery Court was petitioned to probate the estate of Dalton Johnson who, in the short time he survived his wife, inherited all of the property she had possessed; this petition was brought by the people who are either Appellees or the person from whom the Appellees' interests derive in the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pro-Choice Mississippi v. Fordice, PRO-CHOICE
...that should have been litigated in the prior suit, are barred from re-litigation under the doctrine of res judicata. Johnson v. Howell, 592 So.2d 998, 1002 (Miss.1991); Riley v. Moreland, 537 So.2d 1348, 1354 (Miss.1989); Dunaway, 422 So.2d at 751. "Where one has a choice of more than one t......
-
Gates v. Walker, No. 2:90-cv-128WS.
...1348, 1354 (Miss.1989) (quoting Dunaway v. W.H. Hopper & Assocs., Inc., 422 So.2d 749, 751 (Miss. 1982); see also Johnson v. Howell, 592 So.2d 998, 1002 (Miss.1991). The court will now examine each of the above factors in 1. Identity of Subject Matter of the Action Citing Mississippi Employ......
-
Cole v. State, No. 90-KA-1094
...incompetents from suggestions they have waived their rights and Page 1324 have done so without benefit of statute. See Johnson v. Howell, 592 So.2d 998, 1001 (Miss.1991) (citing cases). Equity protects those who cannot protect themselves, cf. Alack v. Phelps, 230 So.2d 789, 792-93 (Miss.197......
-
Bullock v. Resolution Trust Corp., Civil Action No. 3:94-cv-347WS.
...should have been litigated in the prior lawsuit, are barred from relitigation under the doctrine of res judicata. See Johnson v. Howell, 592 So.2d 998, 1002 (Miss.1991); Riley v. Moreland, 537 So.2d 1348, 1354 (Miss.1989); Dunaway v. W.H. Hopper & Assoc., 422 So.2d 749, 751 (Miss.1982). A p......