On September 18, 2025, the Mississippi Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Estate of Herbert Bernard Ivison, Jr. (No. 2024-CA-00421-SCT), affirming the Scott County Chancery Court’s decision to deny Malouf & Malouf, PLLC’s attempt to recover past-due compound interest on unpaid legal fees.[1] The ruling in the instant case provides helpful guidance on the strict requirements of probate practice in Mississippi, especially concerning the limits of permissible amendments to probated claims under Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-151.
This case illustrates the consequences of failing to properly and timely assert a claim against an estate, particularly when later attempts are framed as “amendments” but in substance create an entirely new obligation. For estate practitioners, creditors, and fiduciaries, Ivison underscores the importance of precision in probate filings and the judiciary’s unwillingness to relax statutory deadlines.
Factual Background
Before his death, Herbert Bernard Ivison, Jr. (“Ivison”) retained Malouf & Malouf, PLLC (“Malouf”) to represent him in a divorce action against his spouse, Rebecca Case Ivison (“Rebecca”). The retainer agreement required Ivison to pay a 1.5% monthly service charge on any bill not paid within thirty days.
After Ivison’s death, his estate was opened and Malouf filed a probated claim for $86,480.01 in unpaid legal services. Importantly, this original claim (1) included only simple interest at 1.5% per year, not the contractual 1.5% per month and (2) the retainer agreement itself was not attached to the claim.
To settle the estate, Rebecca and Ivison’s three sons each offered to purchase all estate assets. The chancery court approved Rebecca’s offer, which included payment of all timely probated claims. Malouf’s $86,480.01 claim was listed among those accepted.
Nearly four years later, Malouf attempted to file an “amended” claim for $176,720.62, this time calculating compound interest under the retainer agreement. Once again, the retainer agreement was not attached, and Malouf did not disclose its existence until years after Rebecca’s purchase had been approved.
Legal Analysis
Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-151 requires all claims against an estate to be probated within 90 days of the first publication of notice to creditors. While defective affidavits may be corrected by amendment, the statute does not allow creditors to amend in such a way that increases the amount of such claim, sets up a new causes of action, or materially changes the basis for a claim outside the limitations period.
The Court relied heavily on Cent. Optical Merch. Co. v. Est. of Lowe, 160 So. 2d 673 (1964). Under Central Optical, amendments are permissible only if: (1) the original claim is valid; (2) the character and identity of the claim are not changed; (3) the amendment does not include unrelated increases in the sum claimed; and (4) the proposal does not conflict with the statute.
Applying these standards, the Court found that while Malouf’s original claim was valid, but the second claim altered both the character and the calculation of interest. Malouf’s first claim sought unpaid attorney’s fees with simple interest to a fixed date. The later claim sought compound interest at 1.5% per month from the filing date forward—an entirely different obligation. The Court emphasized that the identity of a claim changes when a creditor introduces a new method of calculation that was never disclosed in the original filing. The result of this was that the claim had essentially been modified in a manner that increased the sum claimed based on a new claim, additional interest via compounding, something not originally contained in the original probated claim and not something properly raised within the claims filing period.
While Malouf attempted to analogize its situation to Farrell v. McCutchon, 183 So. 386 (Miss. 1938), where the Court permitted interest recovery because it was evident on the face of the probated promissory note. In contrast, Malouf’s original claim did not reference compound interest, and the retainer agreement memorializing such terms was withheld until years later. Thus, unlike in Farrell, neither the estate nor the chancery court had notice of the claimed contractual interest. The Court stated clearly that “…we find Malouf’s second claim is not an amendment but rather a new claim filed past the ninety days a creditor has to file a claim against an estate.”
Although the chancellor had also found the claim barred by judicial estoppel and usury, the Supreme Court resolved the case solely on the dispositive issue of untimeliness. Because the second claim was deemed a new claim, it fell outside the 90-day statutory period and was thus barred as a matter of law.
Practical Implications for Estate Practice
For Creditors
File Early and Completely: Creditors must ensure their claims include all contractual terms—such as interest provisions—at the time of probate. Supplementing with later filings may be deemed new claims and denied.
Attach Supporting Documents: Failure to attach relevant contracts or agreements risks later challenges and preclusion of full recovery.
For Executors and Fiduciaries
Scrutinize Amendments: Executors should carefully examine whether creditor “amendments” alter the substance of the claim, including supporting information attached to the claim. If so, they may be challenged as untimely new claims.
Statutory Deadlines Are Strict: Courts will not relax the 90-day filing requirement, even when equities might otherwise favor the claimant.
For Practitioners
Understand the Limits of Probate Amendments: Practitioners should counsel clients that probate amendments are narrowly construed to correct clerical or technical defects—not to introduce new legal theories or calculations.
Judicial Economy and Finality: This case highlights the Court’s commitment to finality in estate administration. Once a probate claim is settled, the Court is reluctant to reopen matters absent clear statutory authority. For that matter, once the claims period expires, the time for new claims is over, including amendments to existing claims which may raise new issues ancillary to the originally filed and valid claims.
Conclusion
The Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in Estate of Ivison reaffirms strict adherence to probate filing deadlines and the limited nature of permissible claim amendments. By affirming the chancery court, the Court reminds us that creditors must fully and accurately present their claims at the outset, or risk forfeiture of additional amounts later.
[1] See also Malouf & Malouf, PLLC v. Est. of Ivison (In re Est. of Ivison), 371 So 3d 180 (Miss. 2023). In this case, Malouf contested the chancellor’s disallowance of Malouf’s base claim of $86,480.01 which was overturned by the Mississippi Supreme Court. In arguments, Malouf was noted to have represented to the Court that it sought only the amount of the original claim, not the amount based on monthly compounded interest, which it seeks in the instant case.
