McCord v. Spradling, 97-CT-01276-SCT.
Decision Date | 21 November 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 97-CT-01276-SCT.,97-CT-01276-SCT. |
Parties | Peggy Spradling McCORD, Executrix v. Nina M. SPRADLING. |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Cliff R. Easley, Jr., Bruce, attorney for appellant.
Lindsey C. Meador, Cleveland, attorney for appellee.
EN BANC.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
COBB, J., for the Court.
¶ 1. Peggy Spradling McCord, executrix of the estate of J.W. Spradling, appealed the decision of the Calhoun County Chancery Court which awarded Nina M. Spradling (the widow) a judgment from Mr. Spradling's estate. On appeal, the executrix asserted five assignments of error in the trial court's:
(3) awarding the widow
(a) all the 1996 cotton land rent, and
(b) half of the equitable interest in the 1996 hay crop;
¶ 2. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, and the widow filed a motion for a new hearing. Although the Court of Appeals denied the motion, it withdrew the original opinion and substituted a revised opinion, which (1) affirmed the award of the FEGLIA proceeds to the widow and the finding of no constructive trust, but finding the proceeds were subject to a breach of contract claim based on the antenuptial agreement; (2) affirmed the reimbursement of funeral expenses; (3) reversed and rendered on the cotton rent check, but affirmed on the hay proceeds; (4) affirmed the denial of attorney fees; and (5) affirmed on the issue of the form of the judgment. Further, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the chancery court for consideration of whether the antenuptial agreement was breached by the widow, and if so, a determination as to the measure of damages for such breach.
¶ 3. The widow timely filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this Court, which we granted. The sole issue for which certiorari was sought concerns $22,050 in proceeds from the FEGLIA policy, and is summarized as follows:
DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN HOLDING THAT, ALTHOUGH THE WIDOW WAS ENTITLED TO THE FEGLIA PROCEEDS AND WAS IMMUNE FROM A COURT-IMPOSED CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, SHE WAS NOT IMMUNE FROM A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION STEMMING FROM HER ACTIONS?
¶ 4. We conclude that it was error for the Court of Appeals to affirm the chancery court's refusal to impose a constructive trust. Thus as to this issue, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand to the chancery court with instructions to impose a constructive trust on the FEGLIA proceeds in favor of Mr. Spradling's children. All other issues addressed by the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and not addressed by this opinion, are affirmed.
FACTS
¶ 5. The following statement of facts is taken from the opinion of the Court of Appeals:
McCord v. Spradling, 2000 WL 1819539, at ¶¶ 6-10 (Miss.Ct.App. Dec.12, 2000).
DISCUSSION
¶ 6. Because Mr. Spradling's first wife was the named beneficiary on the FEGLIA policy, and she had predeceased him, the FEGLIA statute mandated that the widow would be the recipient of the insurance proceeds. The statute provides the following order of precedence in paying a death claim:
5 U.S.C. § 8705(a)(emphasis added).
¶ 7. However, in some circumstances courts have imposed a constructive trust as an equitable remedy to prevent unjust enrichment. The Court of Appeals cited Saulsberry v. Saulsberry, 223 Miss. 684, 690, 78 So.2d 758, 760 (1955), for the definition of a constructive trust:
A constructive trust is one that arises by operation of law against one who, by fraud, actual or constructive, by duress or abuse of confidence, by commission of wrong, or by any form of unconscionable conduct, artifice, concealment, or questionable means, or who in any way against equity and good conscience, either has obtained or holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold and enjoy. 54 Am.Jur., Trusts, Sec. 218. A constructive trust is an appropriate remedy against unjust enrichment. Ibid., Sec. 219.
(emphasis added).
¶ 8. The Court of Appeals held that a "constructive trust could not be utilized to preempt the widow's entitlement to the insurance proceeds under the order of precedence set forth in the statute creating FEGLIA, and the insurance proceeds were properly paid to the widow." McCord v. Spradling, 2000 WL 1819539, at ¶ 28 (Miss.Ct.App. Dec.12, 2000). However, the majority opinion went on to hold that the executrix and the children were not without a remedy:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hillman v. Maretta
...O'Neal v. Gonzalez, 839 F.2d 1437 (C.A.11 1988), with Hardy v. Hardy, 963 N.E.2d 470 (Ind.2012) (not pre-empted); McCord v. Spradling, 830 So.2d 1188 (Miss.2002) (same); Kidd v. Pritzel, 821 S.W.2d 566 (Mo.App.1991) (same).3 Hillman points to some textual differences among NSLIA, SGLIA, and......
-
Maretta v. Hillman
...constructive trust on FEGLI proceeds for the benefit of someone other than the named beneficiary. See generally McCord v. Spradling, 830 So.2d 1188, 1202 (Miss.2002) (citing cases and finding persuasive state court holdings that the “distinction between beneficiary status and ultimate equit......
-
Hardy v. Hardy
...786 F.2d 379 (10th Cir.1986). 5. E.g., In re Anderson, 195 Ill.App.3d 644, 142 Ill.Dec. 79, 552 N.E.2d 429 (1990); McCord v. Spradling, 830 So.2d 1188 (Miss.2002); Kidd v. Pritzel, 821 S.W.2d 566 (Mo.Ct.App.1991); Sedarous v. Sedarous, 285 N.J.Super. 316, 666 A.2d 1362 (1995); Eonda v. Affi......
-
Fagan v. Chaisson
...566, 575 (Mo.Ct.App.1991) ("We hold that the [equity] claims of the plaintiffs are not pre-empted by FEGLIA."); McCord v. Spradling, 830 So.2d 1188, 1203 (Miss.2002) (concluding FEGLIA does not preempt state equitable actions); Sedarous v. Sedarous, 285 N.J.Super. 316, 666 A.2d 1362, 1363 (......