Webber v. Randle (In re Randle)

345 So.3d 569

In the MATTER OF the ESTATE OF Lester RANDLE, Deceased: Tumika Randle Webber and Sylvester Randle

v.Dorothy Meeks Randle

NO. 2020-CT-00433-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

August 18, 2022

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: CARLOS DIALLO PALMER, Greenwood, TANGALA LANIECE HOLLIS, Grenada

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: MARGARETTE LAFAYE MEEKS, Jackson

EN BANC.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

GRIFFIS, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. This Court granted certiorari under Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 17 to resolve a "substantial question of law of general significance" and to consider "fundamental issues of broad public importance." There are two issues to address. First, the chancery court and the Court of Appeals incorrectly considered the settlement proceeds from a wrongful-death claim as an asset of the estate. Second, the chancery court and the Court of Appeals incorrectly considered the petition to determine heirs under Mississippi Code Sections 91-1-1 to -31 (Rev. 2021) instead of a determination of wrongful-death beneficiaries under Mississippi Code Section 11-7-13 (Rev. 2019). We reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Leflore County Chancery Court and remand this case to the chancery court to determine the wrongful-death beneficiaries of Lester Randle under Section 11-7-13.

¶2. In Randle v. Randle , No. 2020-CT-00433-COA, ––– So. 3d ––––, 2021 WL 4972443 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021), the Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor's adjudication that Dorothy and Raymond Randle were Lester Randle's only heirs at law. The majority opinion set forth the facts:

Lester died on July 14, 2009, and was survived by Dorothy, his wife of twenty-one years, and their son, Raymond Randle. Lester had previously been married to Ruthie Randle. Two children were born of that marriage: Tumika and Sylvester, the Appellants. Ruthie and Lester divorced in 1977 when the children were very young.

Lester died intestate. On May 7, 2018, Dorothy filed a petition for grant of letters of administration in which she noted that Lester's "estate consist[ed] of no real property but ha[d] a potential claim for unliquidated damages arising out of" Lester's death. The petition acknowledged the Appellants, as well as Dorothy and Raymond, as Lester's heirs at law. Dorothy was appointed administrator on July 12, 2018.

On November 19, 2018, Dorothy filed a petition for a determination of heirship, now asserting that the estate consisted of a claim for benefits against the manufacturer of Granuflow/Natural Lyte in the amount of $67,500.25 arising from Lester's use of the prescription drug. The petition further claimed that the Appellants were "not heirs at law of Lester Randle and [were] not entitled to any of the settlement proceeds," but rather they "were born to a married man, putative father," and Ruthie. (Emphasis added). A summons by publication was submitted in the newspaper, The Greenwood Commonwealth , to any unknown heirs.

At a hearing before the chancery court on April 11, 2019, Cederica Gilliam appeared, claiming to be Lester's heir; so the court continued the proceedings and ordered Lester's putative children—Sylvester, Tumika, Cederica, and Raymond—to undergo DNA testing. A second hearing was held on January 13, 2020. The testifying witnesses were Brandi Jones (owner of Capital DNA), Dorothy, Cederica, and Cederica's brother Antonio Gilliam.

Jones presented the DNA results, which revealed that there was a 98.74% probability that Raymond and Cederica were half-siblings. There was a 99.69% probability that Tumika and Sylvester were "full siblings." However, the probability that Raymond and Tumika were unrelated was 93.51%. Between Raymond and Sylvester, the report indicated that the "state of the relationship is inconclusive because the probabilities of each are less than 91%." It was further determined there was more than a 99% probability that Cederica and Tumika (99.94%)/Sylvester (99.45%) were unrelated. Thus, Jones testified that based on the reports, "only one individual is a half sibling of Raymond Randle. That is [Cederica]." She also testified that the results showed the Appellants were full siblings, which meant they had "the same mother and the same father." The parties stipulated to the DNA results being entered into evidence.

In her testimony, Dorothy acknowledged that Lester was listed as the father on the Appellants’ birth certificates and that he had been ordered to pay their child support. Dorothy also said, however, that she was "aware of Lester seeking out legal help to look into whether the children were his because he did question it. But at the time they told him it was no good because he was married to [Ruthie]." Dorothy admitted that Lester never instituted any legal proceedings to challenge paternity of the Appellants.

Both Cederica and his brother Antonio testified that their mother had informed them Lester was Cederica's father. Cederica admitted that there was no one listed as his father on his birth certificate, but he stated that Lester would "randomly" stop by and ask him if he needed anything. Cederica would also stop and talk with Lester if he saw him outside on his porch. Cederica assumed Dorothy knew about him, "but eventually [sic] she didn't."

On January 24, 2020, the chancery court entered its final order. The court determined Cederica was Lester's biological child and Raymond's half-sibling, but his claim was statutorily time-barred under Mississippi Code Annotated section 91-1-15(3) (Rev. 2018). The chancery court further concluded that the Appellants were not Lester's legal heirs at law based on the cross-referencing of the DNA results. Accordingly, the court adjudged Dorothy and Raymond as Lester's only heirs at law and awarded them equal shares in any distribution of property. The court also ordered that the Appellants could, at their own expense, exhume Lester's body for DNA testing within thirty days from January 13, 2020, if they wished to do so.

The Appellants filed a motion for finding of facts and law under Rule 52 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. They also filed a motion for a new trial, amendment of judgment, or relief from the judgment or order. In the motion, they alleged that because Lester had never disestablished their paternity or terminated his child-support obligation, he "remained the legal father of Tumika Randle Webber and Sylvester Randle[.]" The Appellants further asserted that the chancery court's allowing them to exhume Lester's body for DNA testing at their expense was "not equitable under the circumstances[,] ... contrary to the present status of the law," and improperly shifted the burden of establishing paternity to them. On March 31, 2020, the chancery court denied the motion for a new trial or to amend the judgment, finding the Appellants had failed to establish any basis for relief under either Rule 59 or Rule 60 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court subsequently filed an order to approve the distribution of assets and to close the estate on April 17, 2020. The Appellants filed a motion to set aside that order. The following day, they also filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay the execution of the order. The Appellants later withdrew the motion to stay at a May 1, 2020 motions hearing; so the chancery court dismissed that motion and ordered both Appellants to post a $5,000 supersedeas bond pending the appeal.

Id. at –––– – ––––, *1-*3 (footnotes omitted).

I. Damages from a wrongful-death claim are not an asset of the decedent's estate.

¶3. The first issue is whether the $67,500.25 settlement proceeds from a wrongful-death lawsuit, filed by Dorothy on behalf of Lester after Lester's death, are an asset of the estate. The chancery court and the Court of Appeals stated that the wrongful-death proceeds were an asset of the estate. They are not.

¶4. The chancellor said that the $67,500.25 was "money that [Dorothy] pursued in this wrongful death case." Damages recovered in a wrongful-death action are the property of the statutory wrongful-death beneficiaries. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-13.

¶5. In Long v. McKinney , 897 So. 2d 160, 169 (Miss. 2004), this Court held that a wrongful-death claim is not part of the decedent's estate. The Court ruled that "the estate is entitled to recover funeral costs and final medical expenses.... The wrongful death beneficiaries are entitled to recover the present net cash value of the decedent's continued existence." Id. ; see also Franklin v. Franklin ex rel. Phillips , 858 So. 2d 110, 115 (Miss. 2003) ("The wrongful death action is not part of the estate of the deceased." (citing Partyka v. Yazoo Dev. Corp. , 376 So. 2d 646, 650 (Miss. 1979) )). This Court has clearly stated that the chancery court's involvement in a wrongful-death claim is limited. Id. Further, in Huber v. Eubanks (In re Estate of Eubanks) , 197 So. 3d 861, 865-66 (Miss. 2015), this Court ruled:

This Court was crystal clear in Long v. McKinney that the chancery court's jurisdiction in wrongful-death litigation may be invoked in only three instances: (1) for opening the decedent's estate so that beneficiaries may pursue a wrongful-death claim in the circuit court; (2) for the approval or rejection of a minor's wrongful-death settlement; and (3) to determine wrongful-death beneficiaries.

¶6. Here, the chancery court's only role was to determine the wrongful-death beneficiaries under the wrongful-death statute, Section 11-7-13. The chancellor and the Court of Appeals were incorrect to consider the wrongful-death proceeds as an asset of Lester's estate.

II. The chancellor may determine the wrongful-death beneficiaries.

¶7. In the estate, Dorothy filed a petition for a determination of heirship. Dorothy challenged whether Tumika, Sylvester, or Cederica were Lester's heirs. After a hearing, the chancellor entered a judgment that held (1) Cederica was Lester's biological child, but his claim was statutorily time-barred under Mississippi Code Section 91-1-15(3) (...