Margaret DeMoville v. Dixie Johnson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-CA-00150-COA
IN RE: THE APPOINTMENT OF A CONSERVATOR
FOR MRS. JOHN Q. (MARGIE ALLEN)
DEMOVILLE: MARGARET DEMOVILLE
v.
DIXIE JOHNSON
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:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
1/8/2002
HON. CHARLES D. THOMAS
LEE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
RON L. WOODRUFF
JIM WAIDE
WILLIAM M. BEASLEY
REBECCA L. HAWKINS
CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES
APPOINTED A CONSERVATOR OVER THE
ESTATE.
AFFIRMED: 6/17/2003
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., BRIDGES AND THOMAS, JJ.
BRIDGES, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Dixie DeMoville Johnson (Dixie) filed a petition for appointment of conservator in the Chancery
Court of Lee County, Mississippi, seeking an appointment of a conservator over the person and estate of
her mother, Mrs. Margie DeMoville. The petition was filed as a result of her mother's failing mental health
and the belief that Margaret DeMoville (Margaret), Dixie's younger sister, was transferring assets from the
estate to herself for her own benefit.
¶2.
Margaret filed an answer opposing the appointment of a conservator and during the course of the
proceedings, she also moved "to stay all proceedings in this case, and to consolidate these matters with the
will contest which would follow upon the death of Mrs. DeMoville."
¶3.
Following three days of testimony and a chance to observe Mrs. DeMoville during the trial, the
chancellor appointed Bill Benson as conservator of Mrs. DeMoville's estate and Margaret as conservator
of Mrs. DeMoville's person. Margaret appeals to this Court regarding the chancellor's decree.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
I. WHETHER THE CHANCELLOR PROPERLY APPOINTED A CONSERVATOR OVER THE
ESTATE OF MRS. MARGIE ALLEN DEMOVILLE.
II. WHETHER THE CHANCELLOR PROPERLY APPOINTED A DISINTERESTED THIRD
PARTY, BILL BENSON, RATHER THAN MARGARET DEMOVILLE.
FACTS
¶4.
Mr. John DeMoville died in 1984 leaving a sizable estate to his widow, Mrs. Margie DeMoville
and her daughters, Dixie and Margaret. The estate was never divided or distributed, but was converted
into a partnership managed by Mrs. DeMoville, with Margaret's assistance. In 1998, Mrs. DeMoville
began showing signs of failing mental capacity due to Alzheimer's disease. In October of 2000, Mrs.
DeMoville moved in with Margaret. It was also around this time that Dixie began to question the
management of the business and questioned Margaret's decision not to engage an estate planner. Dixie also
became convinced that Margaret was hiding information from her, and asked to see bank records, but
Margaret refused to produce any records. The familial relationship swiftly declined after that. Finally, in
2001, Dixie filed suit seeking an accounting of all the assets and petitioned for conservatorship of Mrs.
DeMoville. The chancellor appointed Margaret as conservator of Mrs. DeMoville and appointed Bill
Benson, Lee County Chancery Clerk, conservator of Mrs. DeMoville's estate.
2
ANALYSIS
I. WHETHER THE CHANCELLOR PROPERLY APPOINTED A CONSERVATOR OVER THE
ESTATE OF MRS. MARGIE ALLEN DEMOVILLE.
¶5.
The applicable standard of review is that findings of the chancellor are to be reviewed "in the light
most favorable to the appellee where there is substantial evidence supporting the chancellor's ruling."
Wilbourne v. Wilbourne, 748 So. 2d 184, 186 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). A chancellor's "findings of
fact on conflicting evidence cannot be disturbed on appeal unless it can be said with reasonable certainty
that his findings were manifestly wrong and against the overwhelming weight of the evidence." Harvey v.
Meador, 459 So. 2d 288, 293 (Miss. 1984).
¶6.
Miss. Code Ann. § 93-13-251 (Rev. 1994) governs the petition to appoint a conservator of Mrs.
DeMoville's estate. It states:
If a person by reason of advanced age, physical incapacity or mental weakness is
incapable of managing his own estate, the chancery court of the county wherein such
person resides may, upon the petition of such person or of one or more of his friends or
relatives, appoint a conservator to have charge and management of the property of such
person, and if the court deems it advisable, also to have charge and custody of the person
subject to the direction of the appointing court.
Thus, under this statute, a conservator may be appointed if an individual is "incapable of managing his own
estate." Margaret asserts that dissipation of Mrs. DeMoville's property must be proven in order for a
conservator to be appointed. However, this is contrary to Mississippi law and is illogical. To require
everyone seeking an appointment of a conservator to prove that the person at issue was being cheated by
someone goes far beyond anything required in the statute.
¶7.
In Harvey, the court adopted a "management competency test" with regard to the application of
§93-13-251 which states:
3
A test of management competency can be answered by considering the factors of: ability
to manage, or improvident disposition, or dissipation of property, or susceptibility to
influence or deception by others, or similar factors.
Harvey, 459 So. 2d at 292 (emphasis added). There is nothing in the above quote that states that a
chancellor is required to consider or find each of these factors in order to appoint a conservator. The
chancellor may find just one to be sufficient for an appointment of a conservator.
¶8.
In Conservator of Eldridge v. Sparkman, 813 So. 2d 753, 757 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001),
the court, in applying the Harvey management competency test, considered not only Mrs. Eldridge's age,
but also her physical and mental health and her confused testimony in upholding the establishment of a
conservator. The Court found that there was no abuse of discretion by the chancellor in appointing a
conservator because the evidence "established that Mrs. Eldridge's ability to manage her affairs had been
affected." Id. at 757 (¶14).
¶9.
Based on the aforementioned case law, the overriding question in determining whether a
conservator should be appointed is a person's ability to manage his or her own property. Mrs. DeMoville's
undisputed medical condition of severe dementia renders her incapable of managing her own property.
Such findings, that she is unable to manage her own property, are supported by two treating physicians,
Dr. Ken Davis and Dr. Jan Goff.
¶10.
The record clearly supports the finding that Mrs. DeMoville's medical condition made her incapable
of managing her own business matters. The evidence in the record was overwhelming that Mrs. DeMoville
suffers from severe dementia.
¶11.
Dr. Ken Davis, one of the doctors who saw Mrs. DeMoville, testified in his deposition that his
impression, based on mental status testing performed, was that Mrs. DeMoville was suffering from "mild
to moderate dementia, most likely of the Alzheimer's type." Later, when Dr. Davis saw Mrs. DeMoville
4
in a subsequent hospital admission, he found her condition to be one of "dementia that's moderate to
severe."
¶12.
Another doctor, Dr. Jan Goff, who saw Mrs. DeMoville while the case was pending, testified that
Mrs. DeMoville was incapable of exercising any sort of judgment. When Dr. Goff was asked, during a
deposition, as to the degree of her cognitive functions impairment, he responded, "severe, severe, severe,
unable to do much except for the very basic, maybe some self care things, but nothing requiring any
judgment."
¶13.
Even Margaret herself testified that her mother "needs help now . . . because she has declined very
much." And finally, the chancellor was able to observe Mrs. DeMoville during the proceedings and
questioned her in chambers. In regards to her testimony, the chancellor remarked, "I seriously question
whether Mrs. DeMoville really knew where she was even yesterday." In his decision, the chancellor stated
that he did not believe Mrs. DeMoville "even understood what was being asked."
¶14.
The contention that Mrs. DeMoville is unable to manage her estate is further supported by the
chancellor's holding, which states:
I think, at any time, when some person has lost their sense of reasoning and so forth, and
they have an estate that needs to be managed, the court can get involved, provided the
medical proof is there, without showing that there's been anyone that has allegedly
overreached the particular ward in question.
¶15.
Margaret's own admission that her mother cannot handle matters on her own but needs assistance,
coupled with the testimony of Dr. Goff and Dr. Davis, as well as the chancellor's findings, clearly illustrate
that Mrs. DeMoville was in desperate need of a conservator. Under these circumstances, and under
Mississippi law, the evidence undoubtedly supports the appointment of Margaret as conservator of Mrs.
DeMoville's person and Bill Benson as conservator of her estate.
5
II. IF IT WAS NECESSARY TO APPOINT A CONSERVATORSHIP, WHETHER THE
CHANCELLOR PROPERLY APPOINTED A DISINTERESTED THIRD PARTY, BILL BENSON,
RATHER THAN MARGARET DEMOVILLE.
¶16.
In her brief, Margaret argues that if it was necessary to appoint a conservator, then she should have
been the person appointed of both Mrs. DeMoville and her estate. The chancellor noted that he would
liked to have appointed either Dixie or Margaret as conservator of the estate; however, under the
circumstances, he found that was just not practical. With regards to such matters, this decision was well
within the chancellor's discretion.
¶17.
In Mississippi, the law states that a person with a conflict is prohibited from serving in the capacity
of a conservator. Jackson v. Jackson, 732 So. 2d 916, 921(¶7) (Miss. 1999) ("if a conflict exists, the
fiduciary had a duty to refuse the trust, resign or remove the conflicting personal interest").
¶18.
However, Mississippi has no case on point regarding conflicts of interest among family members.
Because there is no Mississippi case, we turn to another state which has addressed this issue. Missouri,
for instance, has a case concerning this issue involving family members in conflict. In the Missouri case, two
sons were in dispute over which one of them should handle their mother's affairs. One son, Harold, had
previously been given power of attorney by his mother. Couch v. Couch, 824 S.W.2d 65, 65 (Mo. Ct.
App. 1991). The court found that the mother was "totally incapacitated as to managing her finances" and
appointed a public administrator as conservator. Id. at 67. The court also at this time set aside the power
of attorney to Harold because evidence indicated that Harold had made out checks to both himself and his
brother on his mother's accounts which were designated as gifts. Id.
¶19.
Harold appealed, like Margaret in the present case, arguing that he should have been appointed
as conservator. The court, relying on previous decisions, held that although the Missouri statute expressed
6
a preference for family members, that preference would not apply where "the record shows a dissention
in the family." Id. at 70.
¶20.
Consistent with Couch, there was evidence presented that showed an overreaching by Margaret
with regard to her mother's finances. Over $58,000 went to Margaret from Mrs. DeMoville's personal
account. In a sixteen month period, over $78,000 worth of checks, attributable to Margaret's personal
benefit, were written from the estate account owned jointly by Mrs. DeMoville, Margaret and Dixie. A
lawsuit against Margaret for conversion of funds from both the estate account as well as her mother's
personal account is currently pending. Therefore, it was well within the chancellor's discretion to refuse to
allow Margaret to serve as conservator of Mrs. DeMoville's estate in light of the discord between her and
Dixie and the pending lawsuit. Under Mississippi law, Jackson, 732 So. 2d at 921 (¶7), an individual with
a conflict cannot serve as conservator. This, in conjunction with the hostilities between Margaret and Dixie,
was ample reason for the chancellor to refuse to appoint Margaret as conservator of Mrs. DeMoville's
estate.
¶21.
Because neither daughter could serve as conservator of the estate, the chancellor appointed the
chancery clerk, Bill Benson. The supreme court reviews a chancellor's findings of fact under the manifest
abuse of discretion and substantial evidence test. Harvey, 459 So. 2d at 293. In United States Fidelity
& Guaranty Co. v. Melson, the court affirmed the chancellor's decision to appoint the chancery clerk as
conservator in place of an individual with a conflict of interest, despite USF&G's argument that no proof
had been submitted that no one else was qualified to serve. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v.
Melson, 809 So. 2d 647, 656 (¶¶36-40) (Miss. 2002). Because Margaret was not qualified to serve as
conservator, the chancellor properly appointed the chancery clerk of the jurisdiction to serve, and the
chancellor's decision was well within his discretion.
7
¶22. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT IS AFFIRMED.
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., THOMAS, LEE, MYERS, AND GRIFFIS, JJ.,
CONCUR. IRVING, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
McMILLIN, C.J., AND CHANDLER, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
8
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.
