Riley v. Moreland, 59338

• Decision Date: 04 January 1989
• Docket Number: No. 59338,59338
• Citation: 537 So.2d 1348
• Parties: Jane RILEY, Individually and Jane Riley as Guardian of the Estate of Stefan Nicholas Moreland, a Minor, and Jane Riley, as Administratrix of the Estate of Mark Stephen Moreland, Deceased v. Mittie MORELAND.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 1348

537 So.2d 1348

Jane RILEY, Individually and Jane Riley as Guardian of the

Estate of Stefan Nicholas Moreland, a Minor, and

Jane Riley, as Administratrix of the

Estate of Mark Stephen

Moreland, Deceased v. Mittie MORELAND.

No. 59338.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 4, 1989.

Orma R. Smith, Jr., Smith, Ross & Trapp, Corinth, Joseph C. Langston, Langston & Langston, Duncan Lott, Booneville, for appellant.

Thomas A. Wicker, Holland, Ray & Upchurch, Tupelo, Ralph E. Pogue, Aberdeen, Soper & Dent, Rhett R. Russell, Tupelo, Sharion Richardson, Fulton, for appellee.

Before HAWKINS, P.J., and SULLIVAN and ZUCCARO, JJ.

MORELAND III

SULLIVAN, Justice, for the Court:

Mittie Moreland petitioned the Lee County Chancery Court for a judgment declaring a legal services contract entered into by her and the law firm of Soper & Russell to be valid and enforceable as a lien upon any eventual proceeds recovered from the wrongful death of Mark Moreland. The Lee County Chancery Court granted the relief prayed for, ratifying and declaring the contract to be valid and enforceable. From that decision, Jane Riley has appealed to this Court, setting up the following issues:

1. Did the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi have exclusive jurisdiction to decide all issues as to attorney fees, if any, to be allowed the solicitors for an administratrix who was appointed and removed by that Court?

2. Does the Chancery Court of Lee County, Mississippi have jurisdiction of a declaratory judgment suit to determine attorney fees for representing in a wrongful death claim an administratrix appointed by the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, if the jurisdiction depends upon the residence of a guardian, not a necessary nor proper party to the proceedings, whose ward is the sole beneficiary of that cause of action?

3. Is this a proper suit for a declaratory judgment action?

4. Did the Court err in reconsidering a matter that had already been decided and from which an appeal had not been taken? and

5. In the alternative, if the Chancery Court of Lee County could hear these issues, did the Court err in failing to limit the attorney fees to an amount determined on quantum meruit basis for a period ending with removal of the administratrix?

Approximately two weeks after Jane Riley filed her Motion for Injunction against Mittie Moreland in Hinds County Chancery Court, Mittie Moreland filed this action for declaratory judgment pursuant to Rule 57, Miss.R.Civ.P., in Lee County Chancery Mittie Moreland requested that the Lee County Chancery Court enter a judgment declaring the legal services contract executed and entered into by her while she was duly acting as administratrix to be valid and enforceable as a lien upon any wrongful death proceeds arising out of the demise of Mark Moreland. Mittie Moreland was appointed on June 11, 1986, and the legal services contract with Soper & Russell was executed on June 12, 1986.

Court. Jane Riley is a resident of Lee County, and was appointed by the Lee County Chancery Court as guardian of the Estate of Stefan Nicholas Moreland.

Jane filed a motion to dismiss or change venue on August 31, 1987. She claims venue is proper in Hinds County, the situs of the administration. ¹ She also asserts that the legal services contract has already been invalidated by the Hinds County Chancery Court.

By memorandum opinion and order on February 10, 1988, the Lee County Chancery Court, Honorable Michael Malski Presiding, found that the Hinds County Chancery Court never specifically ruled on the validity of the contract, and that venue was proper in Lee County, since Mittie Moreland is claiming a lien on proceeds which will ultimately belong to the guardianship established in Lee County. Consequently, motion to dismiss or change venue was overruled, and a hearing set for February 16, 1988, to determine the merits of the lien.

After a hearing on the merits, the Lee County Chancery Court determined that the legal services contract entered into by Mittie Moreland and the Tupelo Law Firm of Soper & Russell is valid and binding. In the court's opinion, Jane Riley took the estate as she found it, subject to all actions taken by Mittie Moreland while she was the duly appointed administratrix. ² The court thereby expressly ratified the contract, but refused to rule on the reasonableness of the contingent fee percentage or the amount and proportionment of fees ultimately due under the contract. Instead, it consolidated this action with the ongoing guardianship proceedings so that it could later determine the reasonableness of any settlement offers, and at which time it could also determine the reasonableness of attorneys fees under Rule 6.13, Uniform Chancery Court Rules.

The matter is now before this Court on Jane Riley's appeal from the February 10, 1988, memorandum opinion and order denying her motion to dismiss or change venue, and from the February 29, 1988, memorandum opinion and order determining the attorney fee contract between Mittie Moreland and the Tupelo Law Firm of Soper & Russell to be valid and enforceable.

DISCUSSION

Jane Riley does not question the lower court's holding that the legal services contract between Mittie Moreland and the law firm of Soper & Russell is valid. Instead, she raises questions concerning the lower court's assumption of jurisdiction, the appropriateness of a declaratory judgment action under these circumstances, issue and claim preclusion, and the extent of the lower court's ruling.

I. WAS VENUE PROPER IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF LEE COUNTY, AND DID THAT COURT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION?

Issues I and II raise essentially the same question. Jane Riley contends that venue and subject matter jurisdiction is vested in the Hinds County Chancery Court because that court reigns over the administration of the decedent's estate. According to Jane, the matter of determining the validity of the legal services contract entered into by Mittie Moreland while she was acting administratrix is a matter committed solely to the jurisdiction of the court that appointed and removed Mittie, and which authorized the execution of the contract. Jane also contends that this matter is about the extent and value of services rendered under the contract, and that as such, it is a claim for fees against the estate of the decedent, and jurisdiction and venue are therefore vested in Hinds County Chancery Court.

Mittie, on the other hand, views this as an action which touches and concerns the guardianship. Therefore, she concludes that venue and subject matter jurisdiction is vested in the Lee County Chancery Court, that court having reign over the guardianship of Nick Moreland.

Subject matter jurisdiction turns on the type of case at issue, and it is against this backdrop that we consider the arguments. Marx v. Truck Renting & Leasing Association, 520 So.2d 1333, 1338 (Miss.1987). Jane's argument relies primarily on the principle that "jurisdiction of all demands by creditors or others against an estate of a decedent is vested in the chancery court of the county which letters of administration were granted." Trippe v. O'Cavanagh, 203 Miss. 537, 36 So.2d 166, 168 (1948). It cannot be disputed that this is the prevailing rule, but it is simply not applicable at bar. Instead, there is a controlling corollary rule which states that the "chancery court in which the guardianship is being administered shall draw to itself the decision and control of all litigation affecting the guardianship, ... between third persons (Mittie) and the guardian (Jane) ..." Id., quoting Newsom v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans, 184 Miss. 318, 340, 185 So. 595, 602 (1939); see also, Mississippi Constitution of 1890, Sec. 159; Mississippi Code Annotated, Secs. 9-5-83, 11-5-1 (1972). Therefore, for reasons shown presently, venue and subject matter jurisdiction is proper in the Chancery Court of Lee County.

First, the declaratory judgment action filed by Mittie is not a "demand ... against an estate of a decedent ..." The complaint for declaratory judgment asks only whether the contract at issue is valid and enforceable. The complaint does not ask for a determination and award of fees under the contract. The determination of the amount of fees allowable thereunder is a separate question whose answer necessarily awaits the conclusion of ongoing litigation. Furthermore, a proper petition for allowance of fees out of a wrongful death recovery must be filed with the chancery court, and must show "the total amount recovered, the nature and extent of the service rendered, and expense incurred by the attorney, and the amount, if any, offered in compromise before the attorney was employed in the matter." Rule 6.13, Uniform Chancery Court Rules. A review of the record shows conclusively that no claim for fees was involved in the declaratory judgment action, and any such claim would be premature on the facts as they now stand. The chancellor obviously realized this when he expressly refused to determine the "reasonableness of the contingent fee percentages ...," or the amount and "proportionment of attorney fees arising out of the wrongful death action ..."

Second, even if we were to assume that the declaratory judgment action also amounts to a claim certain for fees, it would in reality be a claim against the estate of the ward and not against the estate of the decedent. The contract at issue, by its express terms, states that it authorizes Soper & Russell to prosecute an action for the wrongful death of the decedent. The fee portion of the contract, by its express terms, "assign[s]" to Soper & Russell "an undivided contingent interest in said claim in the following percentages ..." Further, looking as we must to the well pleaded allegations of the complaint which are accepted as true for jurisdictional purposes, the suit is for a judgment declaring the contract valid and "enforceable [as] a valid lien upon...