Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Estate of Oliver

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

April 16, 2019

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ZONA MAE OLIVER, DECEASED: SANDRA JEAN OLIVER AND JAMES HOWARD OLIVER APPELLANTS
v.
JAMES C. OLIVER JR., TERRY MICHAEL CARNEY JR., AND MELISSA M. CARNEY APPELLEES SANDRA JEAN OLIVER AND JAMES HOWARD OLIVER APPELLANTS
v.
TERRY MICHAEL CARNEY JR., MELISSA M. CARNEY, JANET CAROL MCLELLAND, AND JAMES DONALD OLIVER APPELLEES

          DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/14/2016

          COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MONTGOMERY COUNTY CHANCERY COURT TRIAL JUDGE: HON. VICKI B. DANIELS

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: SANDRA JEAN OLIVER (PRO SE)

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: ROGER ADAM KIRK J. LANE GREENLEE

         EN BANC.

          CARLTON, J.

         ¶1. This is a consolidated appeal concerning three cases originating in the Montgomery County Chancery Court, all of which involve the division of real and personal property belonging to Zona Mae Oliver, who died intestate on March 11, 2004. The three actions are a partition action and a fraud action (consolidated in the chancery court after entry of a final judgment in the partition action), and an estate action. The estate action was initiated when Sandra Oliver petitioned the chancery court to appoint her as the administratrix of the Zona Mae Oliver estate, to require an accounting of all real and personal property in that estate, and for other relief. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm the chancery court's final judgment of partition; we dismiss the fraud action appeal as premature because no final judgment has been entered in that action, without prejudice to Sandra Oliver's right to pursue further proceedings after entry of a final judgment in the fraud action; and we affirm the chancery court's dismissal of the estate action on res judicata grounds.

         STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY[1]

         ¶2. As mentioned above, Zona Mae Oliver died intestate on March 11, 2004. Her two sons, James Howard Oliver (Howard) and James Calvin Oliver (J.C.) jointly requested an attorney to file a determination-of-heirship petition. In a judgment entered May 24, 2004, Howard and J.C. were determined to be Zona Mae's only living heirs. The assets remaining in the estate were her residence and the surrounding 365 acres of land located in Montgomery County, plus personal property inside the home that was valued at approximately $70, 000.

         ¶3. On June 20, 2007, J.C. filed a petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Case No. 07-50836. On June 11, 2012, J.C. received a discharge after completion of his Chapter 13 plan, and the case was closed on December 11, 2012.

         ¶4. In the meantime, by quitclaim deed dated May 11, 2009, Howard conveyed his interest in the Zona Mae Oliver property to his daughter and the appellant, Sandra Oliver. After J.C. received his discharge in bankruptcy, by warranty deed dated October 11, 2012, J.C.'s daughter and his attorney-in-fact, Janet Carol McLelland, conveyed J.C.'s interest in the property to the appellees, J.C.'s granddaughter (and Janet's daughter), Melissa McLelland Carney, and her husband, Terry Michael Carney, Jr. (the Carneys). The three separate cases that make up this appeal were subsequently filed in Montgomery County Chancery Court. We begin by briefly summarizing each case.

         I. The Partition Action (Cause No. 13-cv-00088)

         ¶5. The Carneys filed a complaint for partition on May 10, 2013, against Sandra Oliver (the partition action).[2] The Carneys requested that the property in the Zona Mae Oliver estate be partitioned into two equal shares, with each party to pay their share of court costs, ad valorem taxes for 2013, and all other fees and costs incurred to complete the action. This case was assigned to Chancellor Mitchell M. Lundy Jr., who recused himself on August 4, 2014. The partition case was then re-assigned to Chancellor Vicki B. Cobb n/k/a Chancellor Daniels.

         II. The Estate Action (Cause No. 13-cv-00125)

         ¶6. On July 16, 2013, at the same time Sandra filed a response in the partition action, Sandra and her father, Howard, initiated a separate proceeding by filing their Petition to Appoint Administratrix, Account for Lost Property, to Account for Misappropriation of Estate Assets with Power-of-Attorney and for Issuance of Letters of Administration (the estate action). Sandra and Howard named J.C. and the Carneys as defendants in this proceeding. This case was assigned to Chancellor Daniels.

         III. The Fraud Action (Cause No. 15-cv-00093)

         ¶7. Approximately two years later, on June 10, 2015, Sandra and Howard sued the Carneys, J.C., Janet, and Donald Oliver for fraud (the fraud action).[3] This case was assigned to Chancellor Percy Lynchard Jr. In her fraud lawsuit, Sandra alleged that J.C., beginning in 1997, converted funds and property belonging to Zona Mae Oliver to his personal use during her life and after her death, up until J.C., by and through Janet as his attorney-in-fact, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in June 2007. According to Sandra's complaint, J.C. obtained personal loans secured by 120 acres belonging to Zona Mae Oliver which was subsequently lost in a foreclosure sale. Further, Sandra alleged that J.C. received his final discharge from the bankruptcy court on June 11, 2012, and that she and her father "were barred from initiating any proceedings against [J.C.] because of the stay which was in effect in the bankruptcy action." After a final judgment of partition was entered in the partition action, the partition and fraud cases were consolidated before Chancellor Daniels on November 23, 2016, as detailed below.

         IV. Proceedings in the Partition and Fraud Actions

         ¶8. In response to the Carneys' partition complaint, Sandra moved to stay the partition action pending the outcome of the equitable issues raised in her petition to open the Zona Mae Oliver estate filed on July 16, 2013. In her motion, Sandra repeated the same allegations she made in her estate petition regarding J.C.'s alleged waste and depletion of the estate. Her motion also included a claim that she had a right to an equitable offset in the property interest that J.C. deeded to the Carneys. The Carneys contested Sandra's motion. During an October 22, 2013 hearing, Sandra testified at length regarding J.C.'s alleged depletion of the estate, including the 120 acres belonging to the estate that J.C. allegedly lost in foreclosure, and the money that J.C. allegedly wrongly appropriated for the sale of timber, cattle, and other personal property belonging to the Zona Mae Oliver estate. The chancery court denied Sandra's motion to stay the partition action in an order dated November 18, 2013.

         ¶9. An agreed order allowing Sandra's original counsel's request to withdraw was entered on December 3, 2013. Sandra employed new counsel. An order releasing Sandra's second lawyer from representing her was entered approximately five months later.

         ¶10. Sandra's third lawyer filed an entry of appearance on July 22, 2014, and on July 25 Sandra's counsel filed on her behalf a motion controverting the partition action, and seeking an apportionment relating to prior encumbrances and for an adjustment of the equities between the parties (the motion to controvert). This motion again detailed Sandra's allegations of J.C.'s alleged wrongful sale of timber, cattle, and other personal property belonging to the estate of Zona Mae Oliver, and J.C.'s alleged wrongful pledging of 120 acres of real property belonging to Zona Mae to secure loans. Sandra, in this motion, requested that the court enter an order granting her "one half of the property sought to be partitioned plus such additional portions of the property to which she is entitled to receive in equity to prohibit an unjust enrichment of the plaintiffs [the Carneys] and provide for just compensation to the defendant because of the damages suffered by defendant for the fraudulent and wrongful actions of James C. Oliver, Jr."[4]

         ¶11. In September 2014, the Carneys moved, in limine, for an order preventing Sandra from offering any testimony or evidence relating to any claim that she may have due to the actions of James C. Oliver, Jr., as set forth in her motion to controvert. On December 12, 2014, the Carneys filed the affidavit of Tarik O. Johnson, a bankruptcy attorney who, according to his affidavit, was retained by the Carneys to render his professional opinion on the issue of whether Sandra's claim against J.C. and his successors-in-title, the Carneys, was barred by the discharge in bankruptcy granted to J.C. by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Mississippi in Case No. 07-50836 on June 11, 2012. Johnson opined that Sandra's claims were barred by J.C.'s June 11, 2012 discharge in bankruptcy.

         ¶12. Sandra's motion to controvert, the Carneys' motion in limine, and all issues relevant to issues raised in the Carneys' motion in limine that were addressed in Sandra's pro se motion to correct facts and for equitable partition served May 21, 2014, were noticed for hearing. At the February 2, 2015 hearing, counsel for Sandra clarified that both Sandra's motion to controvert, and her pro se motion to correct facts and for equitable partition, to the extent it related to the issues in the Carneys' motion in limine, were before the court. The chancellor stated on the record that she had "read the entire [court] file and not just the motions that are noticed for hearing today . . . [and that she] under[stood] very thoroughly what the issue are, the issues that [Sandra] is trying to raise . . . ." After argument, the court granted the Carneys' motion in limine, finding that any claim Sandra's father, Howard (Sandra's predecessor-in-title), may have had against J.C., the Carneys' predecessor-in-title, were barred by J.C.'s discharge in bankruptcy. She further found that any claim Sandra derives through Howard was also barred. The chancery court entered its corrected order granting the Carneys' motion in limine on March 20, 2015.[5]

         ¶13. Less than two weeks later, on June 23, the Carneys moved to transfer the fraud action and consolidate the fraud and partition cases before Chancellor Daniels in Cause No. 13cv88 (the original partition action). On June 29, Sandra's counsel, James Powell, submitted to Chancellor Lynchard a proposed agreed order to transfer and consolidate the fraud and partition cases before Chancellor Daniels. The agreed order was signed by Mr. Powell and counsel for the Carneys, indicating their agreement that the order be entered. In his cover letter to Chancellor Lynchard, Sandra's counsel explained that the Carney's counsel had filed the motion to transfer and consolidate and that "[he (Sandra's counsel) was] in agreement with [the Carney's counsel] on that issue." Nevertheless, the record reflects that this agreed order appears to have been lost, and was not entered at that time.[6]

         ¶14. An agreed order to stay the partition proceedings, however, was entered in the partition case on July 2, 2015. This order provided for a ninety-day stay within which Sandra could seek to reopen the J.C. bankruptcy proceedings to assert the claims she asserted against him in the fraud lawsuit. No action was taken by Sandra during the ninety-day time period.

         ¶15. The first hearing on the partition lawsuit was set for February 1, 2016. On that date, however, Sandra moved, pro se, to reinstate the stay pending resolution of her motion to reopen J.C.'s bankruptcy estate, and other related motions, which Sandra did not file in the bankruptcy matter until January 29, 2016, over three months past the ninety-day stay entered on July 2, 2015. In her motion to reopen the bankruptcy estate, [7] Sandra reiterated the same claims against J.C. described above, namely: (1) J.C.'s use of the 120 acre parcel as collateral on a mortgage; (2) J.C.'s alleged conversion of cattle, funds, and various pieces of Zona Mae's personal property; and (3) the cutting and sale of timber.

         ¶16. At the February 1, 2016 first partition hearing, which also included a hearing on Sandra's motion to reinstate the stay, [8] the chancellor stated on the record that she had read Sandra's pro se motion for stay, and the bankruptcy pleadings furnished by Sandra's counsel and made exhibits at the hearing. The chancellor further noted that Sandra took no action in the bankruptcy proceeding during the initial ninety-day stay granted by the court. The chancellor denied Sandra's motion to reinstate the stay.

         ¶17. Counsel for both parties represented to the chancery court that the parties had reached an agreement as to how the partition would be conducted, as set forth in the proposed first judgment of partition. The chancellor signed this judgment. The first judgment of partition appointed two commissioners to prepare a valuation and partition report, and it also provided that a final hearing would be conducted confirming the report, and addressing all other issues raised by the pleadings, including any taxes paid by Sandra.

         ¶18. Sandra's counsel also stated on the record that although Sandra had filed a motion to reconsider the court's ruling granting the Carneys' motion in limine to exclude evidence or argument about any claims Howard or Sandra had against J.C., they had decided not to pursue that motion because those issues "had to be determined by the [b]ankruptcy [c]ourt."

          ¶19. The commissioners' report was filed on May 16, 2016, and on September 27, 2016, at the final partition hearing, the chancery court approved the commissioners' report, and heard testimony regarding payment of taxes on the property. The final judgment of partition was entered on September 30, 2016, partitioning the western half of the property to Sandra and the eastern half of the property to the Carneys; addressing payment of the commissioners' fees, attorney fees, other costs; setting forth the stipulated amount of $5, 350.15 to be credited to the Carneys for payment on ad valorem taxes; and denying Sandra's request for reimbursement for certain property taxes paid in 2006-08.

         ¶20. In this same time-frame, on September 28, 2016, the bankruptcy court denied Sandra's motion to reopen J.C.'s Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding to assert her claims regarding J.C.'s use of the 120-acre parcel as collateral on a mortgage, and his alleged wrongful conversion of cattle, funds, timber and various pieces of Zona Mae's personal property.[9] The bankruptcy court found that Howard had adequate notice of J.C.'s bankruptcy to file a nondischargeability action, and failed to do so or to request an extension of the deadline. For this reason, the court found that Sandra, on behalf of Howard, was now time-barred from filing a nondischargeability action. The bankruptcy court also held that "most, if not all, of the alleged debts asserted by Sandra could not have been excepted from discharge anyway. Sandra essentially asserts claims for conversion of Zona Mae's personal property, including the cattle, antique furniture, a car, and the funds in a checking account, as well as a claim for trespass to timber." Under the circumstances in Sandra's case, the court held, these claims are not excepted from discharge in a Chapter 13 case.

         ¶21. On October 10, 2016, Sandra filed, pro se, a motion for new trial, or, alternatively, to alter or amend the final judgment for partition, accompanied by a supporting brief filed November 1, 2016, which included over 110 pages of attachments. The Carneys moved to strike Sandra's pro se brief due to "scandalous content." Sandra filed her pro se opposition to that motion on November 9, 2016. At the November 14, 2016 hearing on these motions, the chancery court denied Sandra's motion for a new trial or to alter or amend the final judgment, and also observed at that hearing that the bankruptcy court's September 28, 2016 ruling barred Sandra's claims. The chancery court also granted the Carneys' motion to strike Sandra's pro se brief supporting her motion for a new trial, and entered its orders on both of these rulings on November 14.

         ¶22. On October 17, 2016, the Carneys moved to dismiss Sandra's fraud lawsuit and sought sanctions against Sandra pursuant to Rule 11 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure for filing a frivolous complaint. Sandra filed her pro se opposition, and the Carneys moved to strike Sandra's brief supporting her opposition due to "scandalous content." The chancery court has not issued any ruling or judgment on the Carneys' motion to dismiss the fraud lawsuit.

         ¶23. The record reflects that on November 11, 2016, counsel for the Carneys filed a motion in the fraud case (before Chancellor Lynchard) seeking entry of the agreed order to consolidate the fraud and partition cases into Cause No. 13-cv-00088 (the partition case) that had been submitted to the court on June 29, 2015 by Sandra's counsel at the time, James Powell. The agreed order signed by the Carneys' counsel and Mr. Powell, together with Mr. Powell's June 29, 2015 cover letter to Chancellor Lynchard submitting the agreed order, were attached as exhibits to the Carney's motion. Sandra opposed the Carneys' motion for entry of the agreed order. In her opposition, Sandra admitted that as early as July 2015, she knew that the Carneys had filed their original motion to transfer and consolidate the partition and fraud cases. She also asserted, however, that she had not given Mr. Powell permission to agree to the transfer and consolidation.

         ¶24. On November 23, 2016, Chancellor Lynchard, who was assigned to the fraud case, signed and entered the agreed order transferring the fraud case to Chancellor Daniels and consolidating the partition and fraud cases for further proceedings before Chancellor Daniels.

         ¶25. On November 29, 2016, Sandra filed a pro se motion in the fraud action entitled "Motion to Appoint Temporary Administrator for Estate of Zona Mae Oliver and Issue Letters of Administration; Motion to Join the Estate of Zona Mae Oliver as Plaintiff; Motion for Temporary Injunction in Partition Claim." In this motion Oliver asked the chancellor to appoint her as the temporary administrator of the Zona Mae's estate and join the estate as a party. Sandra also requested that the chancellor enter an injunction in the partition lawsuit, pending appeal of the final judgment of partition, to preserve the real property that is at issue in all three lawsuits. The record reflects that the chancery court did not rule on this motion before Sandra filed notices of appeal in the partition and fraud cases.

         ¶26. Sandra filed separate notices of appeal in the partition and fraud cases on December 13, 2016. The notice of appeal Sandra filed in the partition action appealed the final judgment of partition entered on September 30, 2016 (also listing a number of other orders and rulings entered in that action prior to the final judgment of partition) and the order denying Sandra's motion for a new trial or, alternatively, to alter or amend the judgment entered on November 14, 2016.

         ¶27. The notice of appeal Sandra filed in the fraud action appealed only the order granting the Carneys' motion to enter an agreed order to transfer and consolidate the fraud case with the partition case entered November 23, 2016.[10]

         V. Proceedings in the Estate Action

         ¶28. As noted above, Sandra and Howard filed the estate action on July 16, 2013. They petitioned the court to (1) appoint Sandra as administratrix of the Zona Mae Oliver estate; (2) order an accounting of certain property, including timber, cattle, and other personal property, allegedly sold by J.C. during Zona Mae's lifetime, and certain real property owned by Zona Mae that J.C. allegedly mortgaged and lost through foreclosure; and (3) ascertain an equitable amount to offset any partition of the property to adjust for "the waste committed by [J.C.]." No action was taken in the estate case until October 17, 2016, when the Carneys moved to dismiss Sandra's petition for failure to state a claim or lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. The Carneys argued that the claims Sandra made in her estate case were barred by the chancery court's prior adjudication on these issues and entry of the Final Judgment of Partition in the partition action on September 30, 2016, and the bankruptcy court's prior adjudication on these issues in the September 28, 2016 order entered in J.C.'s Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding.

         ¶29. Sandra filed a pro se response, among other things, that the attorney for the Carneys had filed "false statements and motions . . . since May 2013;" that the issues in the estate case had not been addressed by Chancellor Lundy in the partition case; and that Chancellor Lundy was not aware of the estate case.

         ¶30. The Carneys moved to strike Sandra's response, alleging that it contained "false, scandalous, and libelous allegations," and seeking sanctions against Sandra under Rule 11. In support of their motion and request for sanctions, and to show that Chancellor Lundy was, in fact, aware of the estate case and the issues raised in that case, the Carneys attached the July 2013 motion to stay the partition action (then pending before Chancellor Lundy), which had the petition filed in the estate case attached as exhibit "A". Also attached to the Carneys' motion to strike was the transcript from the October 22, 2013 hearing on the motion to stay before Chancellor Lundy in the partition action. Sandra testified at that hearing.

         ¶31. Sandra responded that she was not aware of the motion to stay in the partition action having been filed in July 2013 because she had not located it in the court file in her searches in the past three years. According to Sandra, the motion to stay "myster[iously]" appeared when she called the Montgomery county chancery clerk on November 8, 2016.

         ¶32. After conducting a hearing held on November 14, 2016, Chancellor Daniels explained to Sandra that she was going to grant the Carneys' motion to dismiss because the issues Sandra raised in the estate case had been litigated and addressed in J.C.'s bankruptcy proceeding and in the partition proceeding. Chancellor Daniels also heard argument from both parties regarding the Carneys' motion to strike and request for sanctions against Sandra. The chancellor observed that there had been a hearing before Chancellor Lundy on the motion to stay the partition action pending resolution of the issues raised in the estate action and that the transcript from that hearing showed that Sandra testified at that hearing. The chancellor cautioned Sandra to be "careful about making scandalous, libelous statements about people," and that she "was not going to allow it here without sanctioning [her]." The chancellor further explained to Sandra that she is "responsible for what she put in [her filings]." A judgment of dismissal was entered on November 14, 2016, and an order granting the Carneys' motion to strike, and imposing a $1, 650 monetary sanction against Sandra, was entered that same day. Sandra filed her notice of appeal in the estate action on December 13, 2016, appealing both of these orders.[11]

         VI. Proceedings in the Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals

         ¶33. Sandra's notices of appeal filed in the consolidated fraud and partition actions were docketed in the Supreme Court as Case No. 2016-1759. Her notice of appeal in the estate action was docketed as Case No. 2016-1757. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted Sandra's motion to consolidate these appeals, [12] and also entered an order denying Sandra's Motion to Stay Final Judgment and Execution of any Actions in Partitioning Property Pending Outcome of Appeals Without Obligation of Posting Additional Supersedeas Bond and/or in Alternative, Order an Injunction Pending Outcome of Appeals Without Posting Additional Supersedeas Bond. The consolidated appeals were subsequently assigned to the Court of Appeals.

         DISCUSSION

         I. The Partition Action

         ¶34. As detailed above, Chancellor Daniels entered a final judgment of partition in the partition action on September 30, 2016, followed by an order denying Sandra's motion for a new trial or to alter or amend the final judgment, entered on November 14, 2016. We find that the final judgment of partition constitutes a "final, appealable judgment" with respect to the partition action, despite the subsequent consolidation of the partition and fraud actions pursuant to the agreed order entered on November 23, 2016. As the Mississippi Supreme Court held in United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. Estate of Francis ex rel. Francis, 825 So.2d 38 (Miss. 2002), "[c]onsolidation in no way dispenses with the need for separate pleadings or, most importantly, separate final judgments." Id. at 46 (¶22) (emphasis added) (quoting Smith v. H.C. Bailey Cos., 477 So.2d 224, 231 (Miss. 1985)).

         ¶35. Sandra seeks reversal of the final judgment of partition on various procedural, legal, and evidentiary grounds that we have combined and reorganized for discussion purposes below. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the chancery court's final judgment of partition.

         A. Exclusion of Evidence Relating to J.C.'s Alleged Misappropriations

         1. Waiver

         ¶36. Sandra asserts that the chancery court erred in granting the Carneys' motion in limine seeking to prevent her from offering testimony or evidence at the partition hearings relating to any claim that she may have due to J.C.'s actions. "We will not reverse a court's grant of a motion in limine unless we find the court abused its discretion." Harris v. Michael, 211 So.3d 732, 735 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). We find no abuse of discretion in the chancery court excluding this evidence for the reasons explained below.

         ¶37. To briefly review the procedural proceedings relevant to Sandra's assertion, on July 25, 2014, Sandra's counsel filed a motion to controvert the partition action, seeking an apportionment relating to prior encumbrances and seeking an adjustment of the equities between the parties. This motion detailed Sandra's allegations of J.C.'s alleged wrongful sale of timber, cattle, and other personal property belonging to the Zona Mae Oliver estate and J.C.'s alleged wrongful pledging of 120 acres of real property belonging to Zona Mae to secure loans. For ease of reference, we will refer to these assertions as the J.C. misappropriation claims.

         ¶38. In September 2014, the Carneys moved, in limine, for an order preventing Sandra from offering any testimony or evidence relating to any claim that she may have due to the actions of James C. Oliver, Jr., as set forth in her motion to controvert. The chancery court addressed these motions, and, in relevant part, Sandra's May 21, 2014 pro se motion to correct facts and for equitable partition, [13] at a hearing held on February 2, 2015. The chancery court granted the Carneys' motion in limine, finding that any claims Sandra's father, Howard (Sandra's predecessor-in-title), may have had against J.C. (the Carneys' predecessor-in-title), were barred by J.C.'s 2012 discharge in bankruptcy. The chancellor further found that any claim Sandra derives through Howard was also barred.[14]

         ¶39. On March 26, 2015, Sandra filed a motion to reconsider the court's order on the Carneys' motion in limine. At the February 1, 2016 first partition hearing, however, Sandra's counsel informed the chancery court that Sandra would no longer be pursuing any objections to the chancery court's order excluding evidence and testimony on the J.C. misappropriation issues. He explained that after "doing further research in the bankruptcy code," he advised Sandra that only the bankruptcy court could address these issues and that she needed to "start back in bankruptcy court" to seek resolution. He concluded by explaining that they did not pursue a motion to reconsider the chancery court's decision granting the Carneys' motion in limine because, "quite honestly, . . . we came to the conclusion there wasn't any basis for it."

         ¶40. In short, Sandra's counsel informed the chancery court that Sandra would not pursue any objections, as there was no basis to them, and these issues were to be resolved by the bankruptcy court. Accordingly, Sandra cannot secure appellate reversal based upon objections that she effectively withdrew prior to the partition hearing. See Coleman v. Ford Motor Co., 70 So.3d 223, 235 (ΒΆ42) (Miss. Ct. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.