Walton v. Walton
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 32
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Justin Walton sued his uncles in May 2009 to set aside the 1989 deed, arguing entitlement to a one-third share and misrepresentations/undue influence; the trial court dismissed, citing res judicata and time-bar, and sanctions were awarded against Justin.
- Edward and Jacqueline Walton conveyed six parcels to John and Kenneth in 1989 as tenants in common with a life estate reserved for Edward and Jacqueline; Edward died intestate in 1990, probate opened, Justin (then 12) and his mother were given notice in 1991.
- In 1992, Justin’s mother’s counsel withdrew; Justin’s mother failed to continue representation; the chancellor later closed the estate in June 1992, noting Justin was an infant at law and that there were no assets beyond a 1986 Chevrolet truck given to Jacqueline.
- Justin’s 2009 complaint alleged fraud, undue influence, and a belief that Edward’s estate should have transferred property to him; the chancellor held the claim sought to reopen the estate and was time-barred.
- Mississippi law applied a two-year statute for reopening estates (section 91-7-309) and held that the 2009 action was time-barred; fraudulent concealment was not found to toll the statute; the case also involved sanctions under Rule 11.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud claim adequacy under 12(b)(6) | Walton argues fraud in conveyance; seeks relief to set aside 1989 deed. | Walton failed to plead fraud with particularity; claim lacks stateable basis. | Fraud not pled with particularity; failure to state a claim affirmed. |
| Statute of limitations for reopening estate | Argues tolling or correct statute applies; seeks timely action. | Two-year limit under 91-7-309 applies; action time-barred. | Time-bar affirmed; action outside 91-7-309 window. |
| Fraudulent concealment tolling | Contends concealment tolls the limitations period. | No tolling for public-record conveyances; concealment not proven. | No tolling by fraudulent concealment. |
| Sanctions | Argues sanctions were improper or excessive. | Sanctions were warranted for a frivolous second suit; proof of expenses not required to sum to $1,000. | Sanction award affirmed; amount deemed reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. Tullos, 994 So.2d 734 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (de novo review of 12(b)(6) motions; pleading sufficiency)
- O’Neal Steel, Inc. v. Millette, 797 So.2d 869 (Miss. 2001) (fraudules concealment tolling not available for public-record conveyances)
- McWilliams v. McWilliams, 970 So.2d 200 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (ten-year statute not applicable to set-aside deeds; fraud limitations apply)
- Estate of Hudson v. Hudson, 962 So.2d 90 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (fraud allegations must be stated with particularity under Rule 9(b))
- Anderson v. R&D Foods, Inc., 913 So.2d 394 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (statutory limitations question reviewed de novo)
- Foster v. Ross, 804 So.2d 1018 (Miss. 2002) (attorney’s fees awards and sanctions standards)
- Romney v. Barbetta, 881 So.2d 958 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (sanctions standards; evidentiary considerations for fee awards)
- Hodges v. Lucas, 904 So.2d 1098 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (sanctions for frivolous filings; abuse of discretion standard)