Matter of Conservatorship of Redd v. Redd
| Decision Date | 18 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2019-CA-01281-SCT |
| Citation | 332 So.3d 250 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the CONSERVATORSHIP OF Joyce G. REDD: Joyce G. Redd v. John R. REDD, William Howard Redd, Richard Lee Redd, Robert Charles Redd, Tina Cutaia Arias, Regions Bank as Trustee, and Brian Keith Redd |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: D. RONALD MUSGROVE, MICHAEL SHELTON SMITH, II, Jackson
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: HARRIS H. BARNES, III, Flowood, RICHARD POOLE NOEL, III, JOHN HOUSTON DOLLARHIDE, JAMES WILLIAMS JANOUSH, Flowood, CAROLINE BAKER SMITH, Ridgeland
EN BANC.
ISHEE, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. In 2018, five of the late Richard Redd's six children (the Petitioners) sought the appointment of a conservator and guardian over their mother, Joyce Redd. They also sought various temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions to prevent Joyce from taking further financial action without their approval. The Petitioners claimed that their brother, Brian Redd, unduly coerced Joyce into financial decisions detrimental to her estate. Joyce and Brian opposed the injunctive relief sought by the Petitioners.
¶2. Joyce Redd filed a motion for summary judgment as to the conservatorship issue, which the chancery court granted. The chancellor found that the Petitioners failed to produce certificates from at least two examining physicians stating that Joyce was unable to manage her own personal and financial affairs. Regions Bank, as the trustee of the trusts at issue, filed a motion for mediation regarding the remaining issues. The chancellor granted Regions’ motion and, after mediation, the parties settled the case. Disagreements later arose regarding the terms of the settlement, which the chancery court resolved in favor of the Petitioners.
¶3. Both Joyce and the Petitioners have appealed from the final judgment, presenting numerous issues regarding the decision of the chancery court. Among other things, Joyce argues that the chancellor erred in his award of attorneys’ fees from trust funds, and she contends that the parties did not have a meeting of the minds at the close of the mediation. The Petitioners argue on cross-appeal that the chancellor's granting of summary judgment in favor of Joyce was an error. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
¶4. Richard Redd was the CEO and chairman of Redd Pest Control. He died on May 10, 2015. He was survived by his wife, Joyce Redd. He was also survived by six stepchildren or adopted children, five of whom are the Petitioners. The sixth child is Richard and Joyce's adopted son, Brian Redd.
¶5. Richard was financially successful. Before his death, Richard planned and accounted for his estate, including the enactment of the Joyce G. Redd Irrevocable Trust and the Richard Levi Redd Irrevocable Trust. Regions Bank was named as the trustee of both trusts, which, combined, contained approximately $7 million. A life insurance trust also contained approximately $5 million that will become payable upon Joyce's death.
¶6. Richard and Joyce adopted Brian at a young age. Brian suffered from learning disabilities early in life and attended schools for children with such disabilities. As an adult, Brian received money from Richard, and he often lived with Richard and Joyce.
¶7. The Petitioners alleged that since Richard's death, Brian has taken advantage of Joyce, both emotionally and financially. The Petitioners further contended that Brian unduly influenced and coerced Joyce into making financial decisions detrimental to both her and her estate. According to the Petitioners, Brian improperly influenced his mother to give him large sums of money regularly, including $10,000 for Brian to have hair transplants. The Petitioners claimed among other things that Brian, who is more than forty years of age, lives with Joyce rent free and that she added his name to her bank and credit-card accounts.
¶8. The Petitioners contended that, in order to prevent any further undue influence, they sought the appointment of a conservator over Joyce. The Petitioners also sought temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief against Brian. Joyce filed for a motion for partial summary judgment on November 30, 2018. The trial judge granted Joyce's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the Petitioners’ petition for the appointment of a conservator.
¶9. In regards to the remaining issues, Regions requested approval from the chancery court that the attorneys’ fees be paid out of the Joyce G. Redd Irrevocable Trust and that Regions be discharged from liability for such payments. The chancellor granted Regions’ motion. Regions also moved for court-ordered mediation regarding Joyce's allotment of trust assets. Joyce filed a response in opposition to Regions’ motion for court-ordered mediation, claiming that Regions was not a party to the litigation and, therefore, was not entitled to request mediation. The chancellor granted Regions’ motion and referred the action to mediation.
¶10. The parties participated in mediation on March 12, 2019, following which all parties signed a settlement terms sheet. The terms sheet included a $14,000 monthly "budget" for Joyce, which:
¶11. The Petitioners and Regions later offered a proposed final settlement agreement that, among other things, stated:
Regions, as trustee of the Joyce G. Redd Irrevocable Trust and Family Trust B, will provide Joyce with a monthly budget of approximately $14,000.00, made up of approximately $2,100.00 from Joyce's Social Security, approximately $2,500.00 from Joyce's IRA representing the annual required minimum distribution (RMD) amount, and approximately $9,400.00 in trust funds. The Parties agree that the Trustee will continue to make the distributions as they are currently being made, however the Parties agree that the IRA is owned by Joyce and she will have the right to amend/alter the distribution amount and the disposal of same, though any amendments/alterations to the IRA distribution will result in Regions making a correction in the amount distributed to Joyce from trust funds such that a monthly total of approximately $14,000 is maintained. The Parties understand and agree that the monthly total may vary slightly depending on the calculation of the required minimum distribution and/or social security payments.
¶12. Both the settlement terms sheet and the proposed agreement included a global release, though the parties subsequently disagreed as to whether it applied to Regions. Though the settlement terms sheet was signed by all parties, the proposed settlement agreement was not. On April 17, 2019, Regions filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, claiming among other things that in the weeks following the mediation, Joyce's counsel had attempted to alter material terms of the agreement, namely, "giv[ing] Mrs. Redd complete and absolute discretion over distributions of the IRA[.]" The Petitioners joined Regions’ motion. Joyce filed a response opposing Regions’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement. In her response, she contended that "as a result of and as a part of the negotiations that took place during the March 12, 2019, mediation, all parties agreed that Joyce absolutely and completely owns the IRA."
¶13. After a hearing, the chancellor granted Regions’ motion to enforce and found that the "[p]arties reached a meeting of the minds on all material terms of the settlement, including a total monthly budget for Mrs. Joyce Redd of $14,000 per month comprised of her social security benefits, IRA distributions, and the trust making up any deficiency to reach $14,000 per month." On July 15, 2019, the chancellor entered a final judgment of dismissal with prejudice. Joyce appealed from that judgment, and the Petitioners cross-appealed.
¶14. This Court will not overturn the chancellor's finding of fact unless it was "manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous." McNeese v. McNeese , 119 So. 3d 264, 272 (Miss. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Duncan v. Duncan , 774 So. 2d 418, 419 (Miss. 2000) ). But this Court "appl[ies] a de novo standard of review to questions of law." Walker v. State , 303 So. 3d 720, 726 (Miss. 2020) (citing Doss v. State , 19 So. 3d 690, 694 (Miss. 2009) ).
¶15. On January 30, 2019, the chancellor ordered that attorneys’ fees for trustee Regions, Joyce, and the Petitioners be paid out of the trusts at issue. The chancellor certified this order as a Rule 54(b) final judgment. Joyce did not take an immediate appeal from this order. She did, however, appeal from the chancellor's July 15, 2019 final order. Regions argues that this Court "lacks appellate jurisdiction over the January 30, 2019 Rule 54(b) order" because Joyce missed the deadline for filing a notice of appeal regarding the attorneys’ fees.
¶16. A party has thirty days after a final judgment is entered to perfect an appeal. M.R.A.P. 4(a). Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) states, in part:
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counter-claim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an expressed determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an expressed direction for the entry of the judgment.
¶17. Joyce contends that the plain language of Rule 54(b), as well as its supporting comments and caselaw, prove that her appeal is timely. Specifically, she argues that the issue of attorneys’ fees was not properly certified as a final...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGee v. Neel Schaffer Eng'rs & Planners Inc.
...appeal still must be timely filed. "[A] Rule 54(b) certification, right or wrong, starts the time for appeal running." In re Conservatorship of Redd , 332 So. 3d 250, 256 (¶18) (Miss. 2021) (quoting Rolison v. Fryar , 204 So. 3d 725, 734 (¶19) (Miss. 2016) ). "Thus, once a trial court has d......
-
Ellis v. Ellis
...agree with the Court's decision, but I write separately to point out its inconsistency with Redd v. Redd (In re Conservatorship of Redd) , No. 2019-CA-01281-SCT, 332 So. 3d 250 (Miss. Nov. 18, 2021). In Redd , the Court affirmed a chancellor's having ordered a case to mediation despite the ......