VERA MAE MILLER WOOD, RUBY MILLER BARNES, ELOISE MILLER WORTHINGTON, NANNIE MILLER MOTEN, MARY ANN MILLER, EARL MILLER, CLEOTHA MILLER, MAGNOLIA MILLER, ALBERTA MILLER FOUNTAIN, MAGGIE MILLER AND ANDERSON MILLER, JR., APPELLANTS
EMMA MILLER, CARL LEON MILLER, SYLVIA KAY MILLER, AUDREY H. KEMP AND DONNA MICHELLE SMITH, APPELLEES
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/01/2013
YAZOO COUNTY CHANCERY COURT HON. CYNTHIA L. BREWER TRIAL JUDGE
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: DANIEL ELLIS MORRIS
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: JAMES MORTIMER CREWS III RICHARD J. ROHMAN
BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., ROBERTS AND FAIR, JJ.
¶1. This appeal concerns the Yazoo County Chancery Court's partition of 261 acres of agricultural property among sixteen people. For the first time on appeal, Appellants claim that they obtained portions of the property through adverse possession, and that the will that devised some of the property to two of the Appellees was invalid. Because those issues are procedurally barred, we affirm the chancellor's judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. When Anderson Miller died in 1929, he left his 261-acre property to his two sons, Thornton and Thomas Miller. As tenants in common, Thornton and Thomas each owned an undivided one-half interest in the property. Thornton died intestate in 1982. His widow, Magnolia Miller, was his only heir-at-law. After the administration of Thornton's estate, Magnolia became the owner of his one-half undivided interest in the property. Magnolia died in 1986. Through her will, Magnolia left her entire estate in equal shares to Audrey Kemp and Donna Smith.
¶3. Anderson's other son, Thomas, died intestate in 1984. Thomas's estate was never administered. His sons Albert, Anderson, Sylvester, and Willie inherited his undivided one-half interest in the property. However, because Willie died with no heirs, his interest in the property went to the heirs of his brothers. As a result, Albert, Anderson, and Sylvester each had an undivided one-sixth interest in the property. Their interests in the property descended through them on to their heirs.
¶4. After Albert died, his nine children inherited his interest in the property. Anderson's interest went to his widow and son. Collectively, Albert's heirs and Anderson's heirs are the eleven appellants. Sylvester's interest went to his widow and his two children. Sylvester's heirs are three of the five appellees. Appellants have not asserted any claims against them.
¶5. In 2004, Kemp and Smith filed a complaint to confirm and quiet title to the property, determine heirship, and partition the property. They amended their complaint in 2007. In early 2009, Judge Janace Harvey-Goree conducted a hearing on Kemp and Smith's amended complaint. On April 16, 2009, the chancellor entered a judgment confirming and quieting title to the property. The chancellor also ordered that the property be partited. Approximately one year later, the commissioners filed their report detailing the method by which the property would be partited into three shares.
¶6. In October 2010, Appellants filed a separate petition in the same cause and sought to obtain title to all of the property by adverse possession. Appellants' petition was not filed as a counterclaim. Appellants never scheduled a hearing on their petition, and they never presented any evidence to support their claim.
¶7. In May 2012, the chancellor entered a judgment confirming the commissioners' report. The chancellor awarded one share to Appellants, one share to Sylvester's heirs, and one share to Kemp and Smith. In August 2012, Kemp, Smith, and Sylvester's heirs filed a motion to recover the agricultural rent that was forfeited as a result of Appellants' refusal to allow anyone to lease the property for farming purposes. In March 2013, Judge Brewer held that Appellants owed Kemp and Smith $70, ...