Roberts v. Roberts, 51608
| Decision Date | 12 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 51608,51608 |
| Citation | 381 So.2d 1333 |
| Parties | Albert J. ROBERTS et al. v. Mrs. Myrtis Denton ROBERTS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate ofWilliam E. Roberts, Deceased. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Nicols, Smith & Henderson, Paul B. Henderson, Pearl, for appellants.
McLaurin & McLaurin, John C. McLaurin, Jr., Brandon, for appellee.
Before ROBERTSON, WALKER and LEE, JJ.
WALKER, Justice, for the Court:
This case involves a controversy between the widow of William E. Roberts and his brothers and sisters over the widow's right to inherit from the estate of William E. Roberts, who died intestate in Rankin County, Mississippi, on November 30, 1978.
William E. Roberts and Mrs. Myrtis Denton Roberts, administratrix of the estate of the decedent (appellee herein) were married on February 20, 1975, in Rankin County, Mississippi. No children were born to the marriage, nor did William E. Roberts leave any surviving children by a previous marriage. The deceased met his untimely death in an automobile accident in the early morning hours of November 30, 1978, leaving as his sole surviving heir-at-law, his widow, Mrs. Myrtis Denton Roberts. On December 27, 1978, the Chancery Court of Rankin County issued letters of administration to Mrs. Roberts upon her petition and order of the Chancery Court authorizing letters of administration.
Subsequent thereto, the brothers and sisters of the decedent, appellants, filed their petition asking the Chancery Court to adjudicate and determine rights of inheritance to the estate of the deceased. The petition alleged that, notwithstanding the fact that the decedent left a surviving spouse, the petitioners should be considered the sole and only heirs-at-law of the decedent. This contention is based upon the facts (agreed stipulation of facts by the parties) that the appellee and the decedent separated on or about November 6, 1978; that no reconciliation ever occurred between them; that they executed and entered into a property settlement agreement on November 21, 1978, and filed a joint bill for divorce on November 28, 1978, less than forty-eight hours before the death of Mr. Roberts. The parties were never divorced. The contention of the appellants in the trial court was that the appellee was barred from inheriting anything from the deceased because of the language contained in the separation and property settlement agreement which the parties executed, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix "A." That agreement, inter alia, divided, with particularity, all of the property, real and personal, owned by the parties, each getting approximately one-half.
In the chancellor's written opinion, he held that the execution of the property settlement agreement by the parties did not bar the appellee from inheriting from the decedent's estate and entered a final decree adjudicating the widow, Mrs. Myrtis Denton Roberts, as the sole and only heir-at-law of William E. Roberts, thereby denying the claim of the deceased's brothers and sisters of the estate.
The lower court was of the opinion that the property settlement agreement was made in contemplation of an "irreconcilable difference" divorce, and that the same would not be enforceable as against the widow until and upon the entry of a final decree of divorce. We are of the opinion this was error, because the separation and property agreement specifically provided, inter alia, that:
This agreement is not entered into for the purpose of procuring a divorce between the parties and is not contingent upon either party procuring a divorce from the other.
In support of their contention that the widow contracted away her right to inherit, the appellants (brothers and sisters of the deceased) cite language in the second paragraph of the preamble to the Roberts' agreement which states:
WHEREAS, irreconcilable difference having arisen between them, and they are now living separate and apart and now desire to make a mutually acceptable settlement of their respective rights, liabilities, obligations and property rights arising out of and during the course of their marital relationship ; . . . (Emphasis added).
The appellants urge this Court to adopt the reasoning that the widow's status as an heir "arises out of" the marital relationship by virtue of Mississippi Code Annotated section 91-1-7 (1972), and that she is precluded from asserting her status as an heir of the deceased husband to claim the property allotted to him under the property settlement agreement.
As authority, the appellants cite In re Lee's Estate, 6 Misc.2d 799, 161 N.Y.S.2d 962 (1957), wherein the agreement before the court provided that the parties released any rights they might have "arising out of their marriage relationship." The court held in that case that the use of such language effectively barred any right of inheritance which the wife had prior to execution of the agreement. That case is persuasive of appellants' contention when considered in the light of other language used in the Roberts' agreement. We doubt, however, that such language, standing alone, would be decisive of the issue.
But, considering the language of the preamble (heretofore quoted) to the Roberts' agreement, with the language found in The rules applicable to the construction of written contracts in general are to be applied in construing a postnuptial agreement. Such a contract must be considered as a whole, and from such examination the intent of the parties must be gathered. Such construction should be given the agreement, if possible, as will render all its clauses harmonious, so as to carry into effect the actual purpose and intent of the parties as derived therefrom.
Paragraph eight which states: "This agreement shall be binding not only upon the Husband and Wife, but also upon their heirs, successors and assigns", and together with the provision in Paragraph twelve that "This agreement . . . is not contingent upon either party procuring a divorce from the other", the instrument clearly manifests the parties intention that the property settlement was to be final and binding, not only while they lived, but, also, in the event of the death of one of the parties whether a divorce was obtained or not. Mrs. Roberts received her share of approximately one-half of the couple's property under the agreement, and she is now precluded by that same agreement from claiming the other one-half as the sole heir of the deceased.
As to postnuptial agreements, this Court in Kirby v. Kent, 172 Miss. 457, 160 So. 569 (1935), said:
The rule is, as to a postnuptial agreement, that only such rights in the estate of the deceased spouse are barred as are expressly enumerated or reasonably inferable from the language employed therein. Clark v. Castner et al., 242 Mich. 608, 219 N.W. 675; 18 C.J. 857. In construing such agreements the purpose must be clear to exclude the surviving spouse from having his or her rights of inheritance in the deceased spouse; and they will be so construed only so far as the agreement clearly requires. (172 Miss. at 466-67, 160 So. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruce v. Dyer
...upon the granting of a divorce. See Bassett v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 189 Neb. 206, 201 N.W.2d 848 (1972); cf. Roberts v. Roberts, 381 So.2d 1333 (Miss.1980). This issue has not been raised in the instant ...
-
McCord v. Spradling, 97-CT-01276-SCT.
...Smith, 656 So.2d 1143, 1147 (Miss.1995); Newell v. Hinton, 556 So.2d 1037, 1042(Miss.1990); Hensley, 524 So.2d at 327; Roberts v. Roberts, 381 So.2d 1333, 1335 (Miss.1980). ¶ 46. The record in this case reveals that when Mr. and Mrs. Spradling married, each was aware that the other had garn......
-
Wallace v. United Mississippi Bank, 96-CA-00383-SCT.
...in matters of contract interpretation. See id. at 1126. See also Newell v. Hinton, 556 So.2d 1037, 1042 (Miss.1990); Roberts v. Roberts, 381 So.2d 1333, 1335 (Miss.1980). "If the document is clear and unambiguous as to the collateral securing other debts we have found intent to secure these......
-
In re Smink, No. 01-10696.
...in matters of contract interpretation. See id. at 1126. See also Newell v. Hinton, 556 So.2d 1037, 1042 (Miss.1990); Roberts v. Roberts, 381 So.2d 1333, 1335 (Miss.1980). "If the document is clear and unambiguous as to the collateral securing other debts we have found intent to secure these......