Elizabeth L. Strickland v. Amy Alyece Broome, 179 So. 3d 1088

Background

Steve Broome and Elizabeth Strickland divorced in 2002 and entered a written Property Settlement Agreement that required Steve to maintain life insurance naming Elizabeth beneficiary, pay monthly child support, split health-insurance premiums and college savings costs, and contained mutual waivers of inheritance claims.
Post-divorce, modification/contempt proceedings were filed (2003) but ultimately dismissed for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(d) in 2006; neither party moved to set aside that dismissal.
Steve died in August 2013; his will left the entire estate to his wife Amy, who was named executrix and published notice to creditors.
Elizabeth filed two probate claims: (1) $400,000 life-insurance proceeds she asserted Steve was required to maintain, and (2) $161,602.56 for child-support arrearages, unpaid health-insurance premiums, and half of sons’ college expenses (joined by the adult sons).
The chancery court denied Elizabeth’s motions to compel discovery and dismissed the probate claims, reasoning the claims should have been reduced to judgment before Steve’s death and were barred by res judicata based on the prior contempt action.
The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the submitted claims substantially complied with Miss. Code § 91-7-149, that dismissal under Rule 41(d) is not a merits judgment for res judicata, and that Elizabeth was entitled to pursue discovery and a full adjudication on the merits in probate court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the probate claims satisfied Miss. Code § 91-7-149	Strickland argued the agreement, divorce decree, itemized statements, and affidavits substantially complied and gave prima facie proof of claims	Estate argued claims were technically deficient and not reduced to judgment in the divorce case	Court held the filings substantially complied with § 91-7-149 and dismissal on technical adequacy was improper; claimant should be allowed to proceed and present evidence
Whether claims were barred by res judicata due to prior contempt/Rule 41 dismissal	Strickland contended the Rule 41 dismissal was not a merits adjudication and thus did not bar the probate claims	Estate argued the prior contempt proceedings should preclude relitigation	Court held Rule 41(d) dismissal is not a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes
Whether the chancellor properly denied discovery (motion to compel)	Strickland asserted discovery was necessary to locate life-insurance proceeds and develop proof	Estate relied on the chancellor’s finding that claims were invalid to justify denying discovery	Court held denial was tied to erroneous invalidity ruling and remanded for reconsideration of discovery requests
Whether the chancery court could resolve merits at that procedural posture	Strickland argued she was not seeking adjudication on merits at motion to determine technical adequacy and should be allowed to present testimony	Estate implicitly argued claims could be dismissed procedurally	Court held merits were not before the chancellor; summary-judgment–type disposition was inappropriate without full evidentiary proceedings

Key Cases Cited

Central Optical Merchandising Co. v. Lowe’s Estate, 160 So. 2d 673 (Miss. 1964) (standards for technical adequacy of probated claims)
In re Estate of Lingle, 822 So. 2d 320 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (probated-claim prima facie showing requirement)
Biloxi Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Estate of Ross, 546 So. 2d 667 (Miss. 1989) (procedural protections and evidentiary hearing for probate claims)
Raspilair v. Estate of Raspilair, 583 So. 2d 970 (Miss. 1991) (life-insurance claim under divorce decree sufficient as probate claim)
Estate of White v. White, 152 So. 3d 314 (Miss. 2014) (res judicata requires a prior final judgment on the merits)