Stovall v. Stovall

• Decision Date: 19 October 1953
• Docket Number: No. 38833,38833
• Citation: 218 Miss. 364,67 So.2d 391
• Parties: STOVALL et al. v. STOVALL.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 391

67 So.2d 391

218 Miss. 364

STOVALL et al. v. STOVALL.

No. 38833.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 19, 1953.

Ward & Ward, Starkville, for appellants.

Fred B. Smith, Ripley, for appellee.

HOLMES, Justice.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory decree of the Chancery Court of Chickasaw County rendered in the administration of the estate of William Gilbert Stovall, deceased. It involves the question as to whether or not a parol constructive trust was created for the benefit of Mrs. Katherine Fisher Stovall, the widow of the deceased, entitling her to the proceeds of a policy of insurance issued by the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company on the life of her deceased husband. The policy was for the face amount of $10,000, and was made payable to the executors or administrators of the estate of the insured, and was pledged by the insured to the Bank of New Albany as security for a loan. After the death of the insured, and the payment of the loan from the funds provided by the policy, the net proceeds of the policy remaining amounted to $8,376.70.

The contest is between Mrs. Katherine Fisher Stovall, the widow of the deceased, and appellee here, and Mrs. Linda Stovall Parsons and William Gilbert Stovall, Jr., children of the deceased, and appellants here. The deceased died intestate on September 7, 1950, leaving his said widow and children as his sole and only legal heirs, and leaving a personal estate of the gross amount of approximately $25,000, exclusive of the insurance here involved. The deceased had other insurance for the benefit of his said two children in the aggregate amount of approximately $12,000. After the death of the deceased, his said widow, who is the stepmother of said children, qualified as the administratrix of the estate of the said deceased. The widow's petition for the allowance of one year's support was granted in the amount of $3,600. After the death of the deceased, the administratrix collected the net proceeds of the insurance here involved and deposited the same with other funds of the estate. In due course, the administratrix filed her final account and her petition for approval and allowance of the same, and alleged in her petition that the proceeds of the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company policy constituted no part of the estate of the deceased but belonged to her by virtue of a gift from the deceased in his lifetime, or by virtue of a parol constructive trust created for her benefit by agreements and understanding entered into between the deceased and his said two children, and she sought an adjudication of the court accordingly.

The children answered the petition and denied that there had been any gift of the insurance to the widow by the deceased during his lifetime, and denied that any trust had been created for the benefit of the widow by any agreement and understanding between the deceased and his said children, and denied the claimed right of the widow to the entire proceeds of said insurance. The issue thus raised between the deceased's widow and his children was tried by the court before final action on the administratrix' final account, and after hearing the evidence on this issue, the court rendered an interlocutory decree holding that the evidence was insufficient to show a gift of the insurance to the widow by the deceased during his lifetime, but that it established a parol constructive trust for the benefit of the widow entitling her to the entire proceeds of the insurance. From this interlocutory decree, the court granted this appeal.

The evidence relied upon by the appellee to support her claim to the entire proceeds of the insurance is substantially as follows:

R. C. Stovall, Sr., a member of the law firm of Stovall and Stovall, representing the appellee as administratrix in the matter of the administration of her deceased husband's estate, gave the following testimony:

'Q. After the death of Mr. Gilbert Stovall, did you, at anytime, have a conversation with his son William Gilbert Stovall, Jr., whom I believe is commonly referred to as 'Bill', in which he discussed with you the matter of a Pacific Mutual Insurance Policy on the life of his father? A. Yes, I did have a conversation with Billy, as we call William Gilbert Stovall, Jr.

'Q. I wish you would tell us approximately when that was, where it was, and what he said to you relative to it. A. Well, the first conversation was the day after Gilbert's funeral. I believe it was in the office there in Okolona and it related to his father's estate with reference to the insurance that he left, and Billy told me that in addition to the policies for him and 'Sis', why, there was a policy with Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company that was payable to his estate and was pledged to the Bank of New Albany for a loan. That his father had told him that that policy at the bank, the Pacific Mutual Policy, was to go to Kay, and that he wanted to see to it that that was done. That when the policy was collected, the proceeds belonged to Kay; that that was the understanding.

'Q. In other words, as I understand you, Bill told you that that belonged to Kay and that was the understanding between him and his father? A. That's right.

'Q. And he wanted to see to it that that went to her? A. That's right.

'Q. By 'Kay' you are referring to Mrs. Katherine Fisher Stovall? A. That's right.'

This witness further testified that the next time he discussed the matter with Bill, meaning the appellant, William Gilbert Stovall, Jr., was in a telephone conversation; that he was in Columbus and Bill had called him from Washington, D. C.; that he and Mr. Harvey Lee Morrison, an associate attorney in handling the administration, after they had discussed what Bill had told each of them that his father had said, drafted a letter addressed to appellee to be sent to the appellants for their signatures, reading as follows:

'November 3, 1950

'Dear Kay:

'During our father's lifetime he told each of us that it was his wish that you have the proceeds of the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance policy, after payment of the Bank of New Albany loan, that was deposited with that Bank as collateral for the loan. In other words, the policy which named his administrator as beneficiary was to be your exclusive property, less the indebtedness it secured.

'This writing is to advise you of our recognition and consent to the fact that the gift of the policy to you by our father was completed during his lifetime, and our wish that the Bank of New Albany deliver the policy to you and that you as administratrix collect the proceeds for your individual use, as above set out.

'With kindest regards from both of us, we are

'Affectionately,

'Mrs. Katherine Fisher Stovall

'2657 Lan Park Road

'Apartment E

'Birmingham 9, Alabama'

The witness said that this letter was sent to Bill and as it was not signed and returned, they wrote him to return the letter in order that they might proceed, and that it was in response to this that Bill telephoned him. Relating the telephone conversation, the witness said:

'Bill called and expressed hesitancy or objection to handling the distribution of the policy in that manner, as I recall, that, I believe he stated, he would rather for Kay to go on and collect the policy and then he would give her a check for his part of it, something to that effect, and then I mentioned that would be a rather circuitous method of the handling of it, or something to that effect, and then he stated, well, he wasn't sure that his father intended to go through with what he had told him he wanted done. That he hadn't left a will, and he thought he was going to do other things, and he supposed that his father had changed his mind. But, I asked him if his father had ever expressed to him any change of intentions after they had agreed of Kay having the policy, and he said, 'No, he hadn't.' And, the conversation was left with his statement that he would be home in a week or two, something like that. It was near Christmas time then, and then he would see further about it and tend to it.'

The witness said that he again had several conversations with Bill after he returned home. The substance of these conversations was that he asked Bill if he was going to carry out his father's intentions, to which Bill replied: 'Well, you know, Uncle Bob, I got a family that I got to look out for, and it I don't look out for myself, nobody else will.' The witness asked him how that was related to the understanding he had with his father and he made no reply. This witness further related a conversation which he had with the appellant, Mrs. Parsons, in which he quoted her as saying that regardless of Bill's attitude, she was going to see to it that Kay (appellee) got the insurance, 'that that was her papa's, dad's wish.' The witness added that his conversation with Mrs. Parsons relative to the disposition of the insurance was in substance the same as that he had had with Bill.

Harvey Lee Morrison, one of the attorneys representing the administratrix, testified that he had a conversation with Bill both before and after the funeral of the deceased in which Bill told him that his father had told him that the insurance was to go to Kay, and that Bill further said: 'I want to be sure, Harvey Lee, that she gets it.' This witness further testified that Bill told him that at the time his father talked to him about the insurance he thought that his father had some writing about it. The witness said that an examination of the deceased's papers was made to ascertain if he left a will and that none was found.

The appellee, Mrs. Katherine Fisher Stovall, testified over the objection of the appellants that in conversations which she had with Bill he told her that his father had discussed the matter of this insurance with him and his sister (Mrs. Parsons), and that his father had told them that it was his wish that she (the witness) should have the insurance. The witness...