Constance Fitzmaurice v. Charles Vandevort
237 So. 3d 852
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Margarette Smith was placed under a conservatorship; Charles Vandevort was appointed conservator and later, after Smith's death, executor and sole beneficiary under a will naming him as such.
- While conservator, Vandevort opened a joint BancorpSouth account with rights of survivorship and transferred substantial funds from Smith’s Bank of America accounts; he later withdrew $90,000.
- Chancellor approved Vandevort’s final conservatorship accounting, discharged him as conservator, and ordered remaining conservatorship assets transferred to Smith’s estate.
- Fitzmaurice (Smith’s granddaughter and heir at law) filed a will contest and, later, identical contempt petitions (one in the closed conservatorship and one in the estate) alleging Vandevort breached fiduciary duties and ignored court orders.
- Chancellor dismissed the conservatorship contempt petition as time-barred under Miss. Code § 91-7-309 and stayed the estate contempt petition pending resolution of the will contest.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the conservatorship contempt petition (remanding for further proceedings) but dismissed the appeal from the stayed estate contempt petition for lack of jurisdiction because the stay was not a final appealable order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fitzmaurice) | Defendant's Argument (Vandevort) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt petition in conservatorship was time‑barred under Miss. Code § 91‑7‑309 (two‑year limit to reopen accounts) | Petition seeks contempt for breaches of fiduciary duty and failure to comply with court orders, not reopening/falsifying an accounting; thus longer statutes apply (7‑year or 3‑year) | Section 91‑7‑309 applies; petition was filed more than two years after final settlement and conservatorship closure | Court: § 91‑7‑309 does not bar Fitzmaurice’s claims; dismissed judgment reversed and remanded |
| Applicable statute(s) of limitations for claims of contempt/breach | Some claims founded on a decree (7‑year) and others independent fiduciary claims (3‑year); in any event, filings were within applicable periods or require inquiry when plaintiff knew of facts | Argues claims must be evaluated as reopening accounting (2‑year) | Court: Transfer-order contempt claim fits § 15‑1‑43 (7‑year); other claims may be governed by 3‑year catch‑all — timing requires fact inquiry; dismissal on limitations was improper |
| Whether pleadings failed to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)) | Allegations show breaches of fiduciary duty, creation of conflict (joint survivorship account created after appointment), failure to post bond, improper withdrawals and failure to transfer assets — sufficient to state contempt and fiduciary claims | Maintains no harm or frustration of court’s purposes and asserts survivorship vested in him | Court: Allegations, taken as true, are sufficient; dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was erroneous |
| Appealability of order staying the estate contempt petition | Stay improperly bars contempt proceeding pending will contest; appealable | Chancellor’s stay not final; appellee argues interlocutory | Court: Stay is not a final judgment and not appealable — appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of McClinton, 157 So.3d 862 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (statute‑of‑limitations questions reviewed de novo)
- Covington County Bank v. Magee, 177 So.3d 826 (Miss. 2015) (Rule 12(b)(6) motion standard explained)
- In re Guardianship of Duckett, 991 So.2d 1165 (Miss. 2008) (distinguishing suits founded on decrees from other fiduciary claims for limitations)
- Ravenstein v. Ravenstein, 167 So.3d 210 (Miss. 2014) (conservator’s fiduciary duties summarized)
- Bryan v. Holzer, 589 So.2d 648 (Miss. 1991) (post‑appointment bond and surety remedies discussed)
- Conservatorship of Kendrick v. Hancock Bank, 537 So.2d 888 (Miss. 1989) (joint accounts made after conservatorship when ward incompetent are void)
- Brandau v. Greer, 48 So. 519 (Miss. 1909) (fiduciary transactions that vest assets in fiduciary cannot stand)
- Estate of Bodman v. Bodman, 674 So.2d 1245 (Miss. 1996) (ownership of preexisting joint tenancy vs. post‑appointment creation)
- Dewitt v. De Baun, 159 So. 552 (Miss. 1935) (chancellor’s power to enforce orders and contempt procedures)
- In re Estate of Carter, 912 So.2d 138 (Miss. 2005) (equity power to reopen estates where indicia of fraud exist)
- U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Conservatorship of Melson, 809 So.2d 647 (Miss. 2001) (continuing duty to account until discharge)
- In re Conservatorship of Davis, 954 So.2d 521 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (definition of “interested party” for conservatorship matters)
- Will of McCaffrey v. Fortenberry, 592 So.2d 52 (Miss. 1991) (survivorship property vests in survivor)