Deason v. Stinson
| Docket Number: | 2012-IA-01238-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-27-2014 Opinion Author: Coleman, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Transfer of guardianship - Section 93-13-63 - Bond requirements for investments - Section 93-13-17 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson and Randolph, P.JJ., Lamar, Kitchens and Pierce, JJ. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: King, J. With Separate Written Opinion Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Chandler, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-20-2012 Appealed from: AMITE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: DEBBRA K. HALFORD Disposition: Chancellor denied both the request to transfer the guardianship and the guardian's proposed investment plan. |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | In the Matter of The Guardianship of Blaine Michael Roshto, a Minor: Natalie Deason |
JAMES W. SHELSON, ROBERT GREGG MAYER, FRED L. BANKS, JR., GARY L. HONEA |
||
| Appellee: | Joseph M. Stinson, Guardian Ad Litem | PRO SE | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Transfer of guardianship - Section 93-13-63 - Bond requirements for investments - Section 93-13-17 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Blaine Roshto was born to Shane and Natalie Roshto. Three years later, Shane died in the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion. Natalie and Blaine were Shane’s sole heirs and wrongful death beneficiaries. The chancery court appointed Natalie as Blaine’s guardian, because Blaine had a potential claim for damages for the wrongful death of his father. The court authorized a substantial settlement on Blaine’s behalf. In light of a dispute regarding attorneys’ fees in the wrongful death suit and a request from Natalie to invest Blaine’s funds in non-insured deposit accounts, the chancellor determined that a guardian ad litem was needed to protect Blaine’s interest and appointed Joseph Stinson. After Natalie remarried and moved to Louisiana, she filed a “Petition to Approve Final Accounting and for Authority to Transfer Guardianship,” requesting that the court transfer the guardianship to Louisiana. The guardian ad litem opposed both the transfer to Louisiana and Natalie’s proposed investment strategy. The chancellor denied Natalie’s request to transfer the guardianship to Louisiana and her investment. The chancellor ordered Natalie to deposit the funds in an FDIC insured bank account in Mississippi and to use the Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service (CDARS). Natalie filed a petition for interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Natalie argues that the chancery court abused its discretion by denying the transfer of the guardianship to Louisiana. She argues that the decision was based solely on “unwarranted speculation” that Natalie’s marriage to Slade would fail and the chancellor failed to apply a reasonable legal standard to the determination of whether to transfer the guardianship. According to section 93-13-63, for the court to allow a guardianship to be moved out of Mississippi, the guardian must file a petition requesting removal of the guardianship; settle the guardianship accounts; and give a bond with two sureties residing in Mississippi for the full value of the estate to ensure that the guardian will qualify as guardian and file required paperwork in the new jurisdiction. Section 93-13-63 is permissive, not mandatory, and gives the chancellor wide discretion once the three prerequisites are met. In this case, the chancellor heard testimony from Natalie, the guardian ad litem, and financial advisors regarding the proposed investments and the transfer to Louisiana. The chancellor also had an extensive report from the guardian ad litem and a response to that report from Natalie. The hearing transcripts indicates that the chancellor considered many factors, including concerns about the longevity of Natalie’s marriage, the short length of time Natalie and Blaine had been in Louisiana compared to how long they had lived in Mississippi before the move, Natalie and Blaine’s roots and family connection to Mississippi, Natalie’s age and background, Natalie’s lack of financial sophistication and understanding of investments, the age of majority in Louisiana, and the best interest of the child. There is nothing arbitrary about the chancellor’s order, and the chancellor did not abuse her discretion. Natalie also argues that the trial court erred in requiring that the entirety of Blaine’s settlement funds be placed into CDs. She also argues that bond requirements for the investments should be waived because, if they are not, “[Section] 93-13-17 effectively prohibits a guardian from investing in any investment other than a fully insured bank account when a ward’s assets are substantial – because either the guardian could not obtain a bond, or could not afford one.” The plain language of section 93-13-17 unequivocally requires a bond to be posted if the ward’s estate is placed in non-insured investments. The testimony was that, for such a large amount, CDARS was the only practical manner in which the statute could be complied with – the only way that the funds could be deemed placed in Mississippi institutions and be fully insured such that the guardian’s bond could be waived. Under section 93-13-17, the chancellor had no option but to place the investment in a fully insured program such as CDARS, or to require that Natalie post a bond. Thus, there is no error. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
