Kathleen Elmore Jamison v. Cedric Williams, 150 So. 3d 700

Decedent Boyce Elmore died on November 5, 2000; nearly 11 years later Cedric Williams filed a paternity action seeking to inherit as an alleged nonmarital child.
Mississippi law provides a limitations period for postmortem paternity suits: either within one year after death or within 90 days after the first publication of notice to creditors, whichever is less; the one-year rule governs here because the estate was not opened within a year.
Kathleen Elmore (administrator) was appointed two years after Boyce’s death; she did not give Cedric notice of the estate proceedings.
The chancery court held Cedric’s paternity action timely, reasoning the estate’s failure to provide notice tolled the 90-day limitation; the estate appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed the chancery court but declined to apply the one-year limitation because the estate had not argued that specific point below.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal but held (for different reasons) that the one-year limitations period barred Cedric’s claim; attorney misstatements at trial did not excuse the court from applying the correct statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cedric’s paternity suit is time‑barred under Mississippi’s postmortem paternity limitations	Cedric argued the estate’s failure to give him notice tolled the 90‑day limitations period, making his filing timely	Estate argued the one‑year limitation after death (Section 91‑1‑15(3)(c)) barred claims filed more than one year after decedent’s death	Held: One‑year limitation applies; Cedric’s claim filed ~11 years after death is time‑barred
Whether lack of notice to the putative heir tolls the statutory limitations period	Cedric asserted lack of notice prevented him from timely filing and thus tolled any shorter period	Estate maintained the statutory one‑year limit is self‑executing and controls regardless of notice under the version in effect at death	Held: Court rejected tolling based on notice; attorney’s factual/argument errors do not change legal application of statute
Whether the chancery court or Court of Appeals erred in applying the statute of limitations	Cedric relied on chancery court’s tolling ruling; Court of Appeals declined to apply one‑year limit because estate hadn’t argued it below	Estate argued the one‑year rule was presented and should be applied on appeal	Held: Supreme Court agreed the chancery court erred and affirmed Court of Appeals reversal, but applied the one‑year statute itself (despite prior counsel misstatement)

Mladinich v. Kohn, 186 So. 2d 481 (Miss. 1966) (statutes not given retroactive effect absent clear legislative intent)
Stringer v. Trapp, 30 So. 3d 339 (Miss. 2010) (determination whether statute of limitations has run is a question of law)
Wayne Gen. Hosp. v. Hayes, 868 So. 2d 997 (Miss. 2004) (same: statute‑of‑limitations questions are legal issues)
Caldwell v. N. Miss. Med. Ctr., Inc., 956 So. 2d 888 (Miss. 2007) (statutory construction requires attention to the words of the statute)