La Nelle Peterson Spence v. Charles Christopher Scott, IV
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2000-CA-00391-COA
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF FLO SCOTT HOLT, DECEASED: LA
NELLE PETERSON SPENCE
APPELLANT
v.
CHARLES CHRISTOPHER SCOTT, IV, BYRON THOMAS HETRICK, TOM
B. SCOTT, JR. AND TOM B. SCOTT, III
APPELLEES
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
11/01/1999
HON. WILLIAM HALE SINGLETARY
HINDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
MICHAEL B. CUPIT
GERRY SPENCE
CATHERINE WARREN LEE
ROBERT A. MALOUF
CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES
PETITION FOR ACCOUNTING DENIED
AFFIRMED - 09/18/01
9/27/2001; denied 11/6/2001
11/20/2001; denied 1/24/2002
2/14/2002
BEFORE KING, P.J., IRVING, AND CHANDLER, JJ.
IRVING, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. This appeal emanates from an order of the Chancery Court of Hinds County denying La Nelle Spence,
an heir to the estate of Flo Scott Holt (Aunt Flo), the right to an accounting of the estate. Spence, feeling
aggrieved, effectuated this appeal raising, as her sole issue, the question of whether she is entitled to an
accounting. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the chancery court's denial of Spence's petition for an
accounting.
FACTS
¶2. Following the death of her husband, Charles Scott, Aunt Flo granted a durable power of attorney to
Tom Scott, Jr. and his son, Tom Scott, III. Tom Scott, Jr. was the nephew of Charles Scott. For a period
of approximately eleven years, the Scotts acted on behalf of Aunt Flo pursuant to the power of attorney and
performed many tasks including obtaining and maintaining home nursing care for her. On August 1, 1998,
Aunt Flo died, leaving a will to dispose of her property. Spence was one of several devisees under the will.
Each of the Scotts played an integral part in the business affairs of Aunt Flo. Tom Scott, Jr., was Aunt Flo's
banker at his savings and loan bank. Tom Scott, III, was Aunt Flo's personal attorney. Charles Christopher
Scott (Charles Christopher), another of Tom Scott, Jr.'s sons, served as a co-executor of Aunt Flo's estate,
along with Byron Thomas Hetrick, the former law partner of Tom Scott, III. On August 26, 1998, Hetrick
and Charles Christopher admitted Aunt Flo's will to probate.
¶3. Spence requested an accounting of the business dealings the Scotts performed on behalf of Aunt Flo
over the years. In response, the Scotts delivered a voluminous box of papers containing approximately 6,
000 documents. Spence, however, complained that the documents were excessively voluminous and
incoherent to a lay person.
¶4. Spence filed a demand for a formal accounting from Tom B. Scott, Jr. and Tom B. Scott, III(1) after the
Scotts petitioned the court for an attorney's fee in the amount of $175,000. The co-executors, Hetrick and
Charles Christopher negotiated an agreement to settle the issue of the attorney's fee for $15,000. Spence
objected and pressed her demand that an accounting was the only means by which it could be determined
whether the Scotts were entitled to an attorney's fee and the amount thereof.
ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED
Did the chancellor err in refusing to order an accounting?
¶5. This Court applies a limited standard of review to appeals from chancery court, and we will not disturb
findings of the chancellor "unless the chancellor was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous or applied an
erroneous legal standard." Goode v. Village of Woodgreen Homeowners, Ass'n, 662 So. 2d 1064, 1070
(Miss.1995).
¶6. Harper v. Harper, 491 So. 2d 189, 200 (Miss. 1986), holds that the payment of attorney's fees is an
expense of the administration of the estate that does not have to be probated and that the executor's duty to
account may be waived. However, upon a charge by the devisees of mismanagement by the executor, the
chancery court may properly require an accounting.
¶7. In the case at bar, the duty of the executors to file an accounting was waived. Spence, a devisee under
Aunt Flo's will, charges the co-executors with mismanagement. The question for this Court then, under our
previously announced standard of review, is whether the chancellor was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous
or applied an erroneous legal standard in finding that there was no mismanagement by the co-executors
requiring an accounting. As evidence of mismanagement Spence claims that a conflict of interest exists
because the co-executors are related to Aunt Flo's attorneys either through blood or through previous
employment.
¶8. The chancery court held that Mississippi probate law is ripe with estates which have involved
relationships of the type which Spence claims to be a conflict of interest. It further held that it is common for
an executor to be a relative of the decedent and common for that executor to settle claims of other relatives
against the estate. Finding that there was no conflict of interest which would require the co-executors to
relinquish their duties, the court denied the request for an accounting.
¶9. This Court cannot say under the circumstances that the chancellor was manifestly wrong, clearly
erroneous or applied an erroneous legal standard in finding that there was no mismanagement by the coexecutors requiring an accounting; therefore, his findings will not be disturbed.
¶10. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF HINDS COUNTY DENYING
APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR AN ACCOUNTING IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS ARE
ASSESSED TO APPELLANT.
KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, LEE, MYERS, CHANDLER AND
BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR. MCMILLIN, C.J., AND THOMAS, J., NOT
PARTICIPATING.
1. As alternative relief, Spence sought a court order compelling the co-executors, Hetrick and
Charles Christopher, to seek an accounting from the Scotts or that the co-executors be relieved of
their duties and an administrator appointed with the authority to seek an accounting from the Scotts.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
