In the Matter of The Estate of William Barnard Pace: Kate Woodard Pace v. Kathryn Pace Phillips, Administratrix of the Estate of William E. Phillips, Deceased and Tom Pace, Executor of the Estate of William Barnard Pace, 2025-CA-00223-COA

Background

Kate and Will Pace divorced after signing a property-settlement agreement requiring Will to maintain $1 million in life insurance for their four children, name the children beneficiaries, and name Kate as trustee. 1
After Will's death, Kate discovered he had only $500,000 in coverage, had named a trust rather than the children as beneficiaries, and had named his brother Tom instead of Kate as trustee. 2
Kate filed and amended a probate petition in the Pace Estate seeking reformation of the trust and appointment as trustee to enforce the divorce judgment. 3
The estate paid the children the remaining $500,000 shortage, and the chancery court then held Will's obligation was fully satisfied and canceled Kate's claim. 4
Kate appealed, and the estate argued the order was not final and that the claim had been satisfied by payment. 5
The Court of Appeals held the order final and appealable but reversed because the payment did not remedy Kate's loss of control over the children's funds. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the chancery order final and appealable? 7	Kate argued the order finally resolved her probate claim against the estate.	The estate argued the order was interlocutory because the estate remained open.	Yes; it finally resolved Kate's claim against the estate. 8
Did estate payment fully satisfy Kate's probated claim? 9	Kate argued Will breached the divorce judgment by underfunding the policy and denying her trustee control.	The estate argued the children got the full $1 million, so the claim was satisfied.	No; the underfunding payment did not cure the lost trustee control, so reversal and remand were required. 10

Key Cases Cited

Blaney v. Black Jack Oil Co., 325 So. 3d 1204 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (appeals lie only from final judgments 11)
M.W.F. v. D.D.F., 926 So. 2d 897 (Miss. 2006) (without Rule 54(b), partial dispositions are interlocutory 12)
LaFontaine v. Holliday, 110 So. 3d 785 (Miss. 2013) (a final judgment adjudicates the merits and settles all issues 13)
Clarksdale Municipal School District Board of Trustees v. Montgomery, 425 So. 3d 520 (Miss. Ct. App. 2025) (an order is final when nothing remains but execution 14)
In re Estate of Pavlou, 308 So. 3d 1284 (Miss. 2021) (an order finally resolving a claim against an estate is appealable 15)
In re Estate of Lewis v. Thomas, 422 So. 3d 484 (Miss. Ct. App. 2025) (chancery factual findings reviewed for manifest error; legal questions de novo 16)
Prout v. Williams, 55 So. 3d 195 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing chancery factual findings 17)
Moseley v. Smith, 180 So. 3d 667 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (an incorporated property-settlement agreement becomes a court order, not merely a contract 18)
Ainsworth v. Plunk, 343 So. 3d 1108 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022) (equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy 19)
Faulkner v. Faulkner, 5 So. 2d 421 (Miss. 1942) (equity treats as done what ought to have been done 20)
Asanov v. Hunt, 914 So. 2d 769 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (issues not ruled on below generally are not reviewable on appeal 21)
White v. White, 913 So. 2d 323 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (matters not presented to the trial court for a ruling cannot usually be raised first on appeal 22)