Liddell v. Jones, 55949

• Decision Date: 22 January 1986
• Docket Number: No. 55949,55949
• Citation: 482 So.2d 1131
• Parties: Leroy LIDDELL v. Ivory Joe JONES, Admr. De Bonis Non, Estate of William Madison Liddell, Dec'd.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 1131

482 So.2d 1131

Leroy LIDDELL v. Ivory Joe JONES, Admr. De Bonis Non, Estate of William Madison Liddell, Dec'd.

No. 55949.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 22, 1986.

James C. Mayo, Fair & Mayo, Louisville, for appellant.

R.W. Boydstun, Jr., Louisville, for appellee.

Before WALKER, P.J., and HAWKINS and ROBERTSON, JJ.

WALKER, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

Leroy Liddell appeals from the decision of the Chancery Court of Winston County denying his claim against the estate of William Madison Liddell.

William Madison Liddell departed this life June 11, 1981. He died intestate with no direct descendents. From the time he returned to Mississippi in January 1978 until shortly before his death Mr. Liddell shared his mobile home with Leroy Liddell, the appellant in this case, who is also a nephew of the half-blood of the deceased.

On July 13, 1981, letters of administration on the estate of William Madison Liddell were issued to Calvin Coleman, brother-in-law of the deceased. Appellant and other relatives of the half-blood petitioned the court to have the appointment of Calvin Coleman set aside and the appellant substituted. This petition was opposed by Ivory Joe Jones, the only whole-blooded nephew of the decedent.

The court dismissed appellant's petition to have Calvin Coleman removed as administrator and found that the decendents of the half brothers and half sisters of William Madison Liddell were not among his heirs and not entitled to inherit from his estate.

On August 17, 1983, letters of administration de bonis non were granted Ivory Joe Jones on the estate. Calvin Coleman had died June 30, 1983.

The appellant subsequently probated a claim against the estate for $40,000.00 for "taking care of William Madison Liddell for three years and two months." Jones, as administrator of the estate, petitioned the court to disallow the claim. The court denied appellant's claim against the estate and concluded that the living arrangement between the deceased and the appellant was mutually beneficial and that there was no proof of an agreement to pay the appellant for any services rendered.

Appellant contends that the lower court erred in denying his probated claim for "care and nursing services rendered William Madison Liddell."

From Collins' Estate v. Dunn, 233 Miss. 636, 644-645, 103 So.2d 425 (1958) the law on this point is expressed:

It is generally held that an oral agreement to convey land by will or otherwise is within the statute of frauds, and specific performance of such agreement cannot be enforced. Ellis v. Berry, 145 Miss. 652, 110 So. 211. But this Court has recognized the principle that, when parties make an oral agreement that one is to care for and support the other and that the latter will make compensation therefor and such services are rendered, but not paid for by the latter during his lifetime, the party who has rendered the care and provided the support under such an agreement may recover therefor on the quantum meruit. Ellis v. Berry, supra; First National Bank v. Owen, 177 Miss. 339, 171 So. 4; Hickman v. Slough, 187 Miss. 525, 193 So. 443; In Re Estate of Whittington, deceased, 217 Miss. 457, 64 So.2d 580. This Court has said, however, many times, that claims of the character mentioned above, brought up for the first time after the death of the decedent, are looked upon by the courts with disfavor; and in order to maintain such a claim the evidence must clearly establish a contract, express or implied, between the claimant and the decedent, for the payment of compensation for such service. Bell v. Oates, 97 Miss. 790, 53 So. 491; Ellis v. Berry supra; Wells et al v. Brooks, 199 Miss. 327, 24 So.2d 533.

Where the evidence is sufficient to establish the claimant's right to recover in such case, the amount of recovery is limited to the reasonable value of the services actually rendered to the decedent for which payment has not been recovered. Ellis v. Berry, supra. See also 34 C.J.S., 116, Executors and Administrators, par. 372.

The evidence produced at trial failed to prove that a contractual relationship existed between Madison Liddell and Leroy Liddell.

Frank Deramus testified that Madison Liddell had told him that he intended to will Leroy Liddell his property because Leroy was the only one that took care of him and because he could depend on him. Deramus had been Madison Liddell's attorney in a land matter. Roger Frazier, who is Leroy Liddell's nephew and Madison Liddell's great nephew by the half-blood, also testified that Madison Liddell had told him that he intended for Leroy to have "the place" and that he would will Leroy the property for seeing after him and taking care of him.

There was also testimony from Leroy's sister, Sarah Frazier, Reverend Elmer Triplet, and Roosevelt Stephens that Madison Liddell wanted Leroy to have "the place."

There was testimony that Leroy Liddell had come to live with Madison Liddell after Leroy had lost his own property. The sense of the evidence was that Leroy drank excessively and had little means of support...