You are on page 1of 39

Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 23 Filed: 05/26/2017 Page 1 of 5







COMES NOW, Steve C. Thornton, heir of the Decedent and Movant in the Motion to

Dismiss pending in this case, and hereby moves the Court to continue the hearing that was

unilaterally noticed by Petitioners counsel without conferring with opposing counsel, and in

support thereof would show the Court the following:

1. The Petition in this matter was filed December 19, 2016. The date was over 10

years after the Decedents death and the distribution of her estate by agreement of the heirs.

2. On February 6, 2017, undersigned filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition in this

case (hereinafter the Motion to Dismiss). The Petition should be dismissed because it was

based on knowing false premises.

3. Before the Motion to Dismiss was set for hearing, Petitioner filed a Motion For

Authority on March 20, 2017. But the Motion for Authority was not served on undersigned.

Undersigned discovered the existence of the Motion For Authority about May 10, 2017, when

undersigned happen to learn that counsel for Petitioner had scheduled a ex parte hearing of the

Motion for Authority in Simpson County. Counsel for the Petitioner was intending to pursue an

ex parte hearing on the Motion For Authority without informing undersigned opposing counsel,

notwithstanding the ethical rules regarding ex parte communications and with full knowledge of

Page 1
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 23 Filed: 05/26/2017 Page 2 of 5

the pending Motion to Dismiss the Petition that made this a contested case.

4. Upon the discovery, undersigned notified the Courts Administrator of his

objection to such ex parte hearing, and the Courts Administrator took Petitioners hearing off

the Courts docket. That was on or about May 11, 2017. At the same time, the Courts

Administrator informed both attorneys of available dates on the Courts docket, specifically

including July 31, August 1 and August 3 as available dates at the next court term in Simpson


5. Two days ago, Tuesday, May 23, 2017, undersigned received an email from

counsel for Petitioner containing a Notice that she would bring up the Motion For Authority for

hearing before this Court in Lawrence County on June 1, 2017.

6. This case is pending in Simpson County. It is not a Lawrence County case. It

would impose an unnecessary burden on necessary witness(es) who are residents of Simpson

County to schedule the hearing in Lawrence County and on such short notice. There is no reason

why the motion should not heard at the Courts next term in Simpson County.

7. Counsel for Petitioner did not confer with undersigned before Noticing the

hearing for June 1 in Lawrence County. The ability of opposing counsel to manage other matters

and adequately prepare would be inhibited if the hearing were held in Lawrence County on

June 1.

8. Setting this matter for hearing at the Courts next term in Simpson County would

provide fair notice and adequate time for counsel and witnesses to schedule around other pending

work, and better accommodate the local Simpson County witness(es).

Page 2
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 23 Filed: 05/26/2017 Page 3 of 5

9. The tactics employed by counsel for Petitioner are a transparent effort to rush the

Motion for Authority to decision before the Court has opportunity to hear the Motion to Dismiss

filed by undersigned. The Motion for Authority should not be heard before the Motion to

Dismiss. The Motion To Dismiss should be heard and considered by the Court before it

considers whether the Petitioner should be granted any authority.

10. Petitioners counsels tactics are contrary to this Courts District Guidelines,

which instruct that, Cases that are not noticed by the Judges office or an Agreed Order . . . may

be subject to continuance.

11. Petitioners counsels tactics are contrary to spirit and intent of the Mississippi

Rules of Civil Procedure, which according to the Mississippi Supreme Court in Metts v. State

Department of Public Welfare, 420 So.2d 401, 405 (Miss. 1983) was fairly stated as far back as

Whitley v. Towle, 163 Miss. 418, 141 So. 571 (1932) in the following terms:

If the matter is desired to be heard by the chancellor at a time when

his calendar discloses that he will be holding court in some other
county in his district, the usual course is to communicate with him
and have him set a place and a date, which he does in ordinary
course by an oral communication to the solicitors or to the clerk.

163 Miss. at 425, 141 So. at 572.

11. For all the foregoing reasons, this Court should continue the hearing on the

Motion for Authority to the Courts next term in Simpson County.

12. In stark contrast to the conduct of Petitioners counsel, undersigned emailed

Petitioners counsel inviting her to confer on dates during the Courts next term in Simpson

County when the motions could be heard. See attached Exhibit A.

Page 3
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 23 Filed: 05/26/2017 Page 4 of 5

13. July 31, August 1, and August 3 are available dates in the Courts next term in

Simpson County when both the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion for Authority could be heard.

14. In the alternative, should this Court not continue the unilaterally noticed June 1

hearing, then undersigned asks the Court to move the appearance time to the afternoon and

require that both the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion for Authority be heard at that time.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 25th day of May, 2017,

Steve C. Thornton (MSB #9216)

P. O. Box 16465
Jackson, Mississippi 39236
Telephone: (601) 982-0313
Attorney for the Movant

Page 4
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 23 Filed: 05/26/2017 Page 5 of 5


I certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing


means of electronic mail:

Megan Stuard
Attorney at Law
145 East Court Avenue
Mendenhall, Mississippi 39114

Honorable David Shoemake

P. O. Box 1678
Collins, MS 39428

DATED this 25th day of May, 2017.

Steve C. Thornton

Page 5
MAR 20 ?l?
\t^4ps0J c0tJNTy
rN THE MATTER oF THE ctt|{eiv emr



COMES NOW Vince Thotnton, as Administrator and on behalf of the Estate of Sadie C.

Thornton, Deceased, and individually as a beneficiary of the J. P. Thornton Family Trust, and files

this Fist Motion for Authority, and in support thereof would offer the following, to-vrit:

1. As a fiduciary to the Estate of Sadie C. Thornton, and as a successor income beneficiary of

the J. P Thomton Family Trust,

I ,{d-it irttator finds it necessary to invoke this Court's authority

and judsdiction to tequest the authodty to subpoena frnancial statements and records curently in

Steve Thomton's name, escrow account and/ or in the name ofJ. P. Thomton Family Ttust.

2. dministretor will show that the authority requested is necessary in his administration of the

Estate of Sadie C. Thomton, Deceased.

I S^di" C. Thomton, decedent, and her husband, Joseph P. Thomton, deceased, created a living
trust dudng thei lifetime. Sadie C. Thomton and Joseph P. Thomton named themselves Trustors
and CoTrustees. The Trust is named, th" J. P. Thomton Family Trust. The only recorded
document involving the Trust is the Certificate of Trusf No other Trust document
has been recorded. The Cetificate of Trust states that the beneficiaries are Sadie C. Thomton and
Joseph P. Thomton. Most itnportantly, the Certicate of Trust states that the termination
date of the Trust is based upon the date of the last of the Trustors to die. Sadie C. Thomton
was the last Trustot to die in 2005. Sadie nor Joseph (Trustots) died with a Last Will and

The Trustots executed a Declaration of Trust 1fl 7997, but this instrument was never recorded. The
Declaration of Trust names Steve Thornton, Vince Thornton, Joseph T. Thornton, Hope Galloway
(fhomton) Debsh Shams (fhomton) and Tammy Dehabshi (fhornton), the beneficiaries of the
Trust. The foregoing beneficiaries are the children of Sadie C. Thornton (decedent) and Joseph P.
Thotnton. The Declaration of Trust also names Steve Thornton or Vince Thornton s successor
3. Steve C. Thornton hs resicted all interested parties ccess to Estate and Trust financial

information .2 Th^twithout this Court's authority to subpoena banking accouflts in the na:rre ofJ. P.

Thornton Family Trust and/or Steve C. Thornton, Administr^tot is without any recourse to trace

the whereabouts of converted estte assets.

4. Steve C. Thomton has repeatedly restricted access to information ftom intetested patties,

including but not limited to, timber contracts, proceeds ftom timber sales, various disbursements of

Trust money, money spent on expenses for construction, and disbursemefits televant to ongoing

litation all of which the heirs/beneficiaries hold a vested equitable interest. That since 2009, Steve

Thornton has been renovating two houses of the trust that wete originally intended to generate

income fot the Trust. ,{dministrator should review te trust bank records to determine if Steve
Thomton used converted estate ssets andf or proceeds ftom estate propeffy in which he sold, to

pzy fot the construction.3

"A ttort.ehas a duty to maintain clear, complete, and accurte books and records regarding the
trust propety and the administration of the trust, nd, at teasonable intervals on request, to provide
beneficiaties with reports or accountings." Restatement (Third) of Trusts $ 83 (2007). Moreover, "[a]
trustee who fails to keep proper records is liable fot any loss or expense resulting from that failute."

3 Th. Certificate
of Trust and Declaration of Trust provides for the Trustors intent, that the
children eirs of the estate and beneficiaties named in the Declaration of Trust) re to teceive an
undivided interest in all assets and properdes, held in tflst or otherwise, which includes any
proceeds ftom the sale of timbet. The lw favors vesting of temainders and a temainder intetest will
be contingent only if the testator cleady intended such. McClelland a. Bank of Clark"sdale, 238 Miss.
557,719 So. 2d262,267 (1960).'.A remainder interest in a irevocable trust represents a present
fixed rht to future enioyment that gives rise to a vested property interest in trust property even if
tlrat interest is subject to complete divestrnent of defesance." 76 Am. Jr. 2d Trusts S 252 (2005)
Considedng the forgoing, the present possessory interest holders, pet the Declaration of Trust, are
entitled to teceive infomration regarding the damage to their interest in teal property, held in trust or
not, and a detailed accounting as to the wherabouts of proceeds received ftom a Trustee for cutting
timber ftom the real propetty in interested parties where entitled to a complete division and
distribution as early as 2005. Notwithstading the forgoing, the heits of Sadie C. Thomton are
remaindernen of the Trust property rrd are entitled to damages for injury to properry in which they
hold a remainder interest caused by a trustee.
5. Steve Thornton and Joe Thornton have obtained an unfair advantage in tegard to the trust

and estate ptoperty ovet the remaining interest holders when Steve Thomton refused and/ot failed

to distribute estate and trust assets and properties, with the exception that he has made distributions

and loans to himself,a and has allowedJoe Thomton and his family to reside on the property in one

of the rental homes vith unfetteted access to the property. Upon requests by beneficiaries for
information in regard to the expense to the Trust and beneficiaries, Steve Thornton refused and/or

neglected to ptovide financial records to beneficiaries and heirs.

6. This Coutt must allow the Administrtor authority to records to determine

the extent of the damage Steve Thornton has caused the Estate and Trust to suffer as a resuk of his

negnce and mismanagement and ftaud.

7. This Court should temove Steve Thornton ftom any authority he may have as successor

trustee, rf any, because he has breached his fiduciary duty to the J. P. Thornton Family Trust.

8. Steve Thornton is not loyal to the Trust, nor has he carried out the purpose of the trust, s

"successor trustor".T Steve Thornton has shown hostility to benef,ciaries/heirs /interested parties',

(q(ihen timber is wtongfrfiy severed, temaindermen may maintain an action for either possession of
the timber ot for damages to the inhedtance." In re Estate of Emogene Baumgardner, e al. a. lYillian E.
fundJ,Sr., Ttastee, No. 2010-CA-01608-SCT, Mississippi Supreme Court (affirmed in part; reversed
in part and remanded Q012)) see also Learned v. Ogden, 80 Miss. 769,779,32 So. 278,279 (1902)
(Trees when felled or seveted ftom the soil become personal property in which the tenant in
possession has no interest when cut for profit; and the reversioner may maintain his action for the
possession of the ploperty, or for damages therefore in the same mannet and with like effect as if he
were owner of the estate in possession.)
A t*rt". refusing to make or limiting distributions to benefi.ciaries other than the trustee due to
the trustee's self intetest when the trustee also holds a beneficial interest subject to a disctetionary
intetest is demonstative of a trustee's impmper motiue. (Section 91-8-814(1)(A) of Mississippi Code of
1972.)(See also SB No. 2211, Section 9)
T1r. terms of the trust instrument prevail over substantive law except the duty under Section 91-8-
813(a)(1) and Q) to keep the beneficiaries. ..informed and to tespond to tequest of a beneficiary of
an irrevocable trust for trustee's reports and other information reasonable related to the
administtation of the trust." (Section 91-8-105)(9) of Mississippi Code Annotated of 7972, See
also SB No.2277, Section 2)
6 "F"il*"
to maintain necessary books and records may also cause resolve doubts
against the trustee." Restatement (Ihild) of Trusts S 83 (2007) at a(7)
upon any request to distribute estate and trust property and assets, t}eatened to sell real ptoperty

and spend any money held in the trust ccount, which he claims is rvithin his authority, and

threatened to disinherit beneficiaries.


9. Steve Thomton was not loyal to the "estte" when he directed that the heirs to s a small

estate affidavit to convert estate assets and money to the trust.

10. Steve Thomton is not al to beneficiaries to the J. P. Thomton Family Trust because he

allowed his intetests s successor trrrstee, beneficiary, and lawyer to conflict with the interests the

other beneficaries, effectively alienating his own interest ftom the interest of the Trust, estate and


11. Due to lack of communication with the beneficiaries/heirs of Sadie C. Thornton, Deceased,

Steve Thornton took personal propelty belonging to beneficiaries. For example, Vince Thornton

had stored personal propetty in a chicken house located on the trust property, with the permission

of Sadie C. Thornton. That Steve Thomton sold the property as scrap metal and bumed some of

the wooden items, and did so without the knowledge and against the will of Vince Thornton. On

in fotmation and belief, Steve Thornton received ptoceeds ftom selling the ptopetty that was

converted it into suap metal and Vince Thomton has never been reimbutsed for this convetsion.

Similarly, Steve Thornton sold coins that had belonged to the estte and converted the proceeds and

deposited to the trust account.

t "Th. touchstone of the fiduciary relationship between the trustee and his beneficiaries is loyalty."
Jefftey Jackson & Mary Miller, Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law $ 73:8 (2001). . . . "The interests of
the beneficiades are paramount, and nothing should be done that would diminish theit dghts under
the terms of the agreement and gtanted by law.
t Orr" in a fiduciary position, such as trustee, crnot take advant age of that position of trust in
administedng the assets entrusted to him or her." Jeffrey Jackson & Mrq' Miller, Encyclopedia of
Mississpi lu, 5 7 3:8 Q001)
12. That this Court should dissolve the 'Irust because its purlose is for the division and

distibution of the real property held in the Trust for the benefit of the named beneficiaries, but

since the death of Sadie C. Thomton, decedent and trust settlor, Steve Thornton has made eveqt
effort to prevent the Trust ftom ca.rying out its intended porpor..

13. dministrator has teason to believe that the estte ssets have been depleted by Steve C.

Thornton, and it is essential for this Court to exercise its paramount duty, "to see that trusts are

proper executed and ...pteserved." ll/alker a. Cox 53, I So.2d 801, 803 (I\diss. 1988).11

14. For example, Steve C. Thomton, while acting as Trustee and beneficiary, charged the trust

and intetested parties an unknown amount of fees for legal services in which he acted, at least in

prt, as attomey in tegatd to an easement lwsuit.

15. Despite the legal fees charged to the Trust Steve Thornton has yet to puisue that mtter to a

final resolution. As a result of Steve Thornton's lck of due rliligence (as the Trust's lawyer), the

Iwsuit in which the Trust is a party has unnecessarily lingered causing beneficiaries/heirs injury and

harm to his/het respective interest. The Administrator will have a more certairi understanding s to

the extent of the damage once the Court's ganting the Administrtor author to access to bank

records involving estate and trust mofley,

16. bsent this court's intervention and assistance, there is not doubt that Steve Thomton rvill

condnue to deplete the estate and trust estte, if not already having done so, to the detdment of the

interested paties.

"Th. terms of the trust prevail over ny ptovisions of this chapter except. . .the duty of a trustee
to act in good faith in accordance with the terms and purposes of the tust and the intetests of the
beneficiaries..." Secdon 91-8-105)(2) Mississippi Code nnotated of 1972)(See also SB No. 2211,
Section 2)
tt Yeatesa.Box,lgSMiss. 602,61.2,225o.2d477,475 (1945) seealso Restatementof Ttusts $ 37
77. To protect the interest of the estate and trust, this Court should compel Steve C. Thornton

to cooperate with the Administrator by tumrrg over all banking sttements and other relevant trust

documents nd recotds; to remove authority ftom Steve Thornton, tf arty, that he not myuse said
authority to futher defeat the puqpose of the J. P. Thornton Family Trust; and to collect damages

ftom Steve Thomton according to the i"i"ty caused to interested patties.

STHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Vince Thornton, Administatot, requests the

following specific relief to -wit:

Authotity to subpoena bank ccouts in the name of J. P. Thomton

Family Trust and/ot Steve C. Thomton andf or Steve C. Thomton ,{.ttomey At Law pursunt to

Mississippi Code,{,nnotated $ 9|-7-63,7972, x amended.

b) Remove Steve Thotnton's authority, tf zny, as successor trustee of J.

P. Thomton Family Ttust pursuant to Section 91-8-201of the Mississippi Code Annotzted (2076);

.) Dissolve J. P. Thomton Family Trust and grant dministrator

authority to distribute the assets and properdes according to Declaration of Trust or otherwise upon

advise and ditection of this Coutt pursuant to Section 91-8-201 of the Mississippi Code Annotated


d) Attorneys Fees and Court Cost;

Damages pursuant to Section 97-8-207 of the Mississippi Code

,{.nnotated Q016);

Any othet relief not specifically tequested herein as the Court

determines to be in equity and available under the lau.



SsoRN To ,ND SUBSCRIBED before me, this *"AD#, "rti[Jf. ,20]-7

bryr D
My Commission Exptes c

MSBN 104104
01 -847-5090/TELEPHONE


The undetsed attomey for Vrnce P. Thomton does hereby certifi- that she has read the
Petition; made easonable inquiw regarding its contents; and, to the best of her knowledge,
information and belief, it is by, is a reasonable extension of or rs a modification or reversal
of eistng law; and t is/arc well grounded in fact and not interposed or filed for a nproper

rni, th"dt
ot \{.Jvrfu ,2077


Megan R. Stuard
ttorney for Petitioner
MSBN 104104
1,45 E. Court,{.venue
PO Box 520
Mendenhall MS 39114
s t uardlau' frrm@. grnail. c om

Please take notice that Hon. Megan Sturd Thornton ttomey for Administrtor, will bring
before the Court, the foregoing motion orLl{day of 2017 nthe Chancery Court of
Simpson County, Mississippi before J o'clock a.m.

This th"f"y of 2017

Attomey for the Adminstator

Prepared by:


Mississippi Bar No. 104104
Post Office Box 835
Mendenha[ MS 39111
Tehone: 601-847-5090
Facsimile: 84 +553 -03 12


I Megan R. Stuard, ttomey for Adminstl^tot, do hereby cetti$' that I have on this day
delivered and true and correct copy of the aforesaid modon to:

so CERTIFIED, trrir.rrffi
"r P\'AP'ltbtt.

Attorney for the

Ptepared by:


Mississippi Bar No. 104104
Post Office Box 835
Mendenhall, MS 39111
Telephone: 601-847-5090
Facsimile: 84 4 -553 -03 12
}'lAR 0 3 2017
it,iiiri:Ui LAI(ViY
IN THE MAr:tER oF THE 'jlli|P!$|ti
C$ij,fi Cfil{ttfiy CitR|(



COMES NO!, Vince Thornton, Administator of the Estate of Sadie C. Thornton,

deceased, and files this Response to the Motion to Vacate Judgment, Revoke Letters of

Administration, Dismiss Petition, and Sanction Petitioner, and offers unto this Honorable Courq to-


7. The allegations and avements assetted npztagaph begrrning with "COMES

NOW...." on page 1 and each and every allegation and averment asserted throughout the motion

ending in the pangraph beginning with "...WHEREFORE PREMISES..." on page 16 are generally


2. W.hen Vince Thomton received Letters of Administration from this Court onJanuary

23,2077, trere were tn fact assets belonging to the estate of Sadie C. Thomton, deceased, which had

not been distdbuted to het known heirs at lw. As of the date of the instant filing ssets belonging

to the estate of Sadie C. Thomton remain undivided and undistributed.

3. As evidence of the foregoing, the Administrator has attached as an exhibit a st of assets

that Steve Thornton prepared n 2014 for interested parties herein and misrepresented to interested

parties that said [estate] property, Steve Thomton now considers trust property, to be divided

according to a dismibution plan according to the tens of the Trust Declaration. (See Exhibit "A')
4. Adminisftatot vill show that as of Octob er 27 ,2005, the day of Sadie's death, the estate

owned the following ssets, to-wit:

Now0n ln My0
Certificate of deposit ($5,OOO;

b. Social Security check for October, 2005;

c. Clothing in closets ad chest of drawers;

d. Bed coverings and bed matetials;

e. Books;

f. Tools (ltand toob, nuti, bo!i, rus, pocr tools, ctc.);

g. Furniture;

h. Photo albums with pictures;

i. 1995 Chewolet pickup truc

i. 1996 Toyota,\valon automobile;

k. Cash;

l. Gold and silver stored in Steve's safe;

m. stofage shed in the chicken house;

n. Garden tiller;

o. John Deete tracor (2365);

p. John Deere tactor (1020);

q. Haymke;

r. Catde trailer;

s. Bush hog

t. Row disc;

u. Rowplow

v. Flat-bed trailer

vr. Drag blade

x. Hay fotk for round bales;

y. Metal fence posts, wite, galvanized metal pipe and otler rniscellaneous metal;

z. Farm supplies;

aa. Band saw

5. Administtator uill show that at the time of Sadie's death, she owned approximately L76

cres of rel ptoperty, now held in theJ. P. Thomton Family Trust. Pursuant to recorded Certificte

of Trust, it terminated at the death of the last surviving Trusto (that being Sadie C. Thornron on

October 27,2005).

6. Settlors conveyed teal property to the trust in 1997 by quitclaim deed.

7. Adminsftator will show that the Declaration of Trust makes multiple references to

"assets and properties" belonging to the Trust.

8. Relying on the legal training, advise and information provided by Steve C. Thornton, the

interested parties were misled to believe that the Trust controlled all personal [assets] and real

ptoPetty roperties] that were in the possession of Sadie C. Thomton at the time of her death.

9. The Administrator will show that Steve Thornton had interested parties herein sn a

small estate afftdavit. The Administrator and interested parties were advised by Steve Thornton that

this affidavit was to llow successor trustee distribute Sadie's property to the Trust. Interested

parties now know that this is the act of conversion of estate money to the J. P. Thomton Family

Trust. At that tme, the interested paties had no reason to believe Steve Thomton was mishandling

tlre estate propefty, nor did intetested parties have a reason to believe that Steve Thornton would, as

he has cleady done, withhold same ftom the interested parties uithout any oversht or


10. In regard to the letter ptocuded by Steve Thomton in his Motion in which he alleges

Sadie [decedent] resed as trustee, Administrator, on behalf of interested parties, will show that

Steve Thomton and Joe Thornton have never mentioned this alleged resation letter before this

estte was opened. The fact that Steve Thomton and Joe Thomton would have withheld this

information ftom interested patties for eleven (11) yearc, is incredibly suspect. Despite the

suspiciousness in which this letter has been produced eleven years after it was allegedly created,

Administtator contends that it is irrelevant and can not be authenticated. ,{dministratot believes

that the lettet is a. fzbncaton and yet another example of Steve Thornton's attempt to cover-up his

bad faith and possible cdminal acts.

17' Concerning the pay on death ccounts menrioned in the affidavit sed by Joe
Thornton, the Administrator and other interested parties were complete unaware of the

of any POD accounts seized by Sadie at the time of her death. If there were in fact any pOD

accounts known byJoe Thomton or Steve Thornton, the Administrtor of Sadie's estate
has a rht

to receive an accounting of that sset fot a proper accounting of estate property and property faling

outside of the estate.

72' Administrator will show that Steve Thornton failed to advise interested parties that they

had a rht to immediately divide and distribute the estate's property. Instead, the
successor rrustee,

Steve Thornton, emphasized and mistepresented to interested parties that the ftansfer
of said ssets

to the Trust banking account was in their best interest because it would be divided among the

benefaries' None of the beneficiades or heirs in this proceeding, except for the successor

had any leason to believe that Steve Thornton intended to withhold the corpus of the trust,

including the converted estate ssets, ftom interested parties.

13' In regard to the real property mentioned herein above (See fl 6), Adminis tt^totwill show
that said contained a pine plantation and mature hard wood timber. Adrninistrator will
show that Steve Thornton sed contract to have the property clear cut rr_2011. Administrator

contends that the dmbet, once cut ftom the teal property, became petsonal property of
the estate of
Sadie C. Thomton because her heirs have avested, survivorship interest in same. dminisator will
show that Steve Thomton has withheld information regarding the proceeds he received ftom

the ptopeny clear cut. Administrator vill show that the property's value had diminished in
value as

a tesult of the cutting down tfre mature timbe. Administrator is prepared to provide this Court

appraisal of the property before Steve Thornton had the timber cut, and separate appraisal
of the
property aftet the timber had been cut. The land vaiue decreased approximately
$50,000.00, and the

Proceeds teceived and spent by Steve Thomton are to this day unknown to the interested parties.

Administrato will futthet show that the proceeds from the timber u/ere not used for the benefit of

the teal property or the trust. And, there is no evidence that the proceeds were used to py property

taxes. The Administrator will show that Steve C. Thornton has never made a distribution to

intetested parties from the money he eceived by clear cutting the acearage in which the heirs atlzw

hold a vested interest.

14. Steve Thomton correctly stated in his Motion that many of the items holding little value

were distributed among the interested parties n 2006. Other, more vahrable, items or proceed

deriving thereftom, however, were not divided and those items are, to-wit:

a. 1995 Chewolet pickup truck;

b 7996Toyota valon auromobile;

c. Cash;

d. Gold and silver;

e. ,\ storage shed in the chicken house;

f. John Deere actor Q365);

g. John Deere ractor (1020);

h. Hay rake;

i. Catde tailer;

j. Bush hog

k. Row disc;

l. Rowplow

m. Flat-bed trailer

n. Dmgblade

o. Hay fork for round bales; and

p. Band saw

15. One specific example but not limited to it, in 2008, Steve Thomton misrepresented

mteril facts and refused to divide and distibute estate property. On this pard.c'.lar occasion, Steve

Thornton refused to divide Sadie's gold and silver to an heir. Dwing a meeting held at the behest of

Steve Thornton, Debra [intetested party and heir to estate] requested that Steve Thomton distribute

her share of gold and silver that Steve Thornton was holding in his personal safe. Steve Thornton

refused to divide the gold and silver on the basis that Debra [interested] had atrived late for his

meeting and she had not provided enough evidence to him [as successot trustee] that the gold and

silver should be given to Debra [interested prty]. This conversation is recorded and will be made

avallable to the coult upon a hearing on same. The Administltot will show that Steve Thornton

sold the gold and silver for ff2,446.06 two yers later [2010] and deposited the proceeds into the J. P.

Thornton Trust banking ccount. Steve Thornton then took the money and used it for his own
personal benefit.

16. On January 9,2A17, at anothet meeting held by Steve Thomton, interested parties asked

Steve to divide and distribute Sadie's petsonal property. Steve Thomton explained to the interested

patties that the items had no value and that he intended for those items to go to Joe Thornton. This

conversation is recorded and will be made available fot the Coutt upon hearing of same.

77. On January 9,201.7, Steve Thornton advised the interested parties that he had the

authority to spend Sadie's money at his petsonal discretion. Note: this sttement was made after

Steve Thomton had enduced the interested parties to gree that Steve Thornton should deposit cash

and ptoceeds of the estte into the Trust banking account because it was in their best interest and

that it would be divided among them. (See tf 11 herein above)

18. On Octobet 25,2011, Vince Thomton, Debra Shams, Tammy Dahashi and Hope

Galloway [all intetested parties], mailed a certified letter to Steve Thornton requesting a detailed

accounting of all finacial activity 1fl 2010, including the wheteabouts of proceeds ftom the sale of

timbet in which intetested parties had a present vested survivorship interest. ,{.s of the date of the

instant filing, Steve Thornton has refused to provide interested parties financial information

regarding assets and properties in which they hoid an interest.

19. In 2077, despite Steve Thornton's bad faith, rnisleading, misrepresentation, and

conversion, part of an effort to resolve the dispute mentioned herein, the interested parties
^s ^
presented z pln to divide and distdbute everything, all assets and properties, known by interested

parties, as represented to them by Steve Thotnton, as successor Trustee. Despite their good faith

attempt to tesolve the estate and trust dispute with the successor trustee, Steve Thornton stalled just

long enough to initiate n easment lawsuit in the name of the trust in February, 2077. This case is

filed in Simpson County. The fact that the esment lawsuit has yet to come to a final resolution is

the tesult of Steve Thornton's desire to withold from interested parties their rhtrl inhedtance and

lack of due diligence. In 2075, on the Court's Motion, the easemet came back before the Court.

From 2015 untl the date of the instant filing, Steve Thornton has done nothing whatsoever to speed

up the firal tesolution to fhe easement lawsuit. As a result of the foregoing, tfre estate assets and

trust property have b.een wtonglfrrll uithheid from interested parties, except for Joe Thornton and

Steve Thomton. Both Joe and Steve Thomton have used the assets and properties to their exclusive

advantage and benefit without any considetation to the damage and harm it has caused to the
remaining interested parries.

20. The facts prove that Steve Thornton is not acting in the best interest of the beneficiaries

or the estte, and he is usingJoe Thomton to misrepresent the facts.

27. This Court's immediate attention is required in order to resolve the dispute within the

fr-ily in tegatd thts of the Estate's known heirs at law and named beneficiaries of the Trust.

22. A ptoper division, distribution and investtion as to heirship assets and property is

warranted because the facts show that Steve Thornton intentionally concealed ma;tenal facts to

obtain a calculated advantage over other interested paties.

23. Vince Thornton, Hope Thomton Galloway, Tammy Thomton Dahbashi, and Debrah

Thornton Shams placed their rust in Steve C. Thornton, in a capacrty of a legal counselor and a

legal fiduciary in tegard to thelr rhts to J. P. Thornton Family assets and propety, after the death

of the Sadie C. Thomton, decedent herein.

24. The afotementioned ust ws breached when Steve C. Thornton misrepresented facts

and lw tegarding their tespective and joint interest m propety (real personaf tangible and


25. The heits atla'w and beneficiaries of Sadie C. Thomton have a present, vested interest in

reaf petsonaf tangible and intangible ptopety hetd in trust or otlerwise subiect to the laws of

decent and distribution pursuant to Mississippi Code Ann. $91-1-13, as amended.

L. Misptepresentadons of fact and lw precipitated by Steve Thomton enduced Vince

Thornton, Tammy Thomton Dahbashi, Deba Thomton Shams and Hope Thomton Galloway to

unkowingly allow Steve Thotnton to mismanage assets and properties in which the estate of Sadie C.

Thornton has a present vested interest.

b. The Administr.^tot hetein is requesting this Court's assistance in compelling Steve

C. Thomton to account for the heirship properry in land, realty and personalty.

SHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Vince Thornton, Administrator and on

behalf of the Estate of Sadie C. Thornton does respectfrrlly request the following specific telief


1. Order dismissing the motion filed by Steve Thomton;

2. Ordet compelling Steve Thornton to ccourlt for trust and estate

assets and property;

3. Order compelling Steve Thornton to identify property and assets

held in trust, to distingursh between trust property and estate

property, to identi$' ny propefty including intangible property

disposed of prior to the opening of the estate, and identi$' and

itemize the debts of the trust.

4. Order for payment of attomey's fees and coutt cost;

5. Otder for mismanagement of assets and properties identified

herein and repayment of all money Steve mismanaged or


6. An accounting;

7. An inventoTi and

8. Any other relief not specifically requested herein, in equity and in

/ O?-
Administtor of the Estate of
SADIE C. THORNTON, Deceased and
Beneficiary ofJ. P. Thornton Family Trust
Persopslly appea{d befote me, the undersed authority in and for the said county and state, on
rltts2lday of I I lf .
,2077, rithin my jurisdicdon, the s/ithin named VINCE THORNTON,
who acknowledged that he executed the above and foregoing instument.

furnrn u-L{^,{/r_
er OTARY {mft1 .F
b %,D, V-

ST-.{.TE OF {"n3
F f

befote me, the undersed authority in and for the said couaty nd stre,
on this of 2017, within my jurisdiction, the wirhin named VINCE
THORNTON, who acknowledged that (h ir of and that in said reptesentadve capaciry @e)
executed the above and been duly authodzed so to do.



The undetsed attomey for Vince Thornton, the Administrator herein, does hereby certilt

that she has read the pleading; made teasonable inqurry tegarding their contents; and, to the best of
her knowledge, infotmation and belie{ they are warranted by, are a reasonable extension of ot xe a

moriification or revetsal of existing lavr; they are well grounded in fact and ate not interposed ot

filed for an improper purpose.

This the H*, of 2077



Megan Stuard Thomton
Attorney atLa'w
P. O. Box 835
Mendenhall, Mississipp i 39 11 4
(601) 847-5090/ telephone
Mississippi Bar No.: 104104

- l0-

Assets Item Valuation

Miscellaneous Farm ltems

- storage shed $1,200.00
- JD 2365 $2,000.00
- JD 1020 $300.00
- bush hog $100.00
- disc $100.00
- row plow $50.00
- flat bed trailer $300.00
- drag blade $50.00
- hay fork $25.00
- posts, metal, and miscellany: $100.00

Storage shed (chicken house) sitting on Debra's part $7,200.00

Band saw, already taken by Vince $100.00

Benefit allocation of easement litigation expenditure: $28,482.05

Debts Due

Loan payable to Trustee: litigation expenses $4,648.00

Loan payable to Trustee: 2013 real estate taxes $2,366.86

Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 6 Filed: 01/23/2017 Page 1 of 5
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 6 Filed: 01/23/2017 Page 2 of 5
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 6 Filed: 01/23/2017 Page 3 of 5
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 6 Filed: 01/23/2017 Page 4 of 5
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 6 Filed: 01/23/2017 Page 5 of 5
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 2 Filed: 01/23/2017 Page 1 of 3
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 2 Filed: 01/23/2017 Page 2 of 3
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 2 Filed: 01/23/2017 Page 3 of 3
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/19/2016 Page 1 of 6
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/19/2016 Page 2 of 6
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/19/2016 Page 3 of 6
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/19/2016 Page 4 of 6
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/19/2016 Page 5 of 6
Case: 64CH1:16-cv-00384 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/19/2016 Page 6 of 6