April 26, 2016 § 6 Comments
Judges’ Meeting this week.
Next post May 2, 2016.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog
Judge Larry Primeaux's Blog about Practice in Mississippi's Chancery Courts.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 
Hoping for a “what the judges are talking about” post re: last week’s judicial college.
Curious whether the proposed MRCP 16 (trial must be set at start of litigation) being discussed.
It was a fairly unremarkable meeting. The new TPR statute was discussed in detail.
As for R16, it is uniformly considered unworkable in chancery and totally unsuitable for probate matters. The consensus is that it will actually slow down divorces and most other trials, and will be used as a delaying tactic. We passed a resolution asking the court to make it inapplicable in chancery.
Sounds very sensible. I don’t think it’s much more workable in circuit. Seems much wiser to require discovery to be concluded by a date certain, and then have courts issue trial settings for the cases that actually get that far. But I’m just some guy without a robe!
Judge, I have searched your blog and cannot locate anything on this topic. I am up in the Columbus area so this issue is not in your court. I am handling as estate involving an older man in a second marriage. He and his wife did have a prenuptial. He left a LWT that states that after payment of debts, administrative expenses and funeral expenses, he leaves his wife the sum of $50,000. The rest, residue and remainder of his estate, he left to his adult children. The problem (issue) is that his new wife helped him spend most of his money to the tune of leaving about $2000 and very little personal property of value. Probated claims are about $50,000. He did leave substantial real estate that passed to his children through the residuary clause of his LWT. Of course, I understand the real property will have to be used to satisfy probated claims, but (and this may be so elementary I cannot find any law on it) does the real property have to be used to satisfy the wife’s $50,000 general legacy? I believe that it probably does since “rest, residue and remainder” would be what is left over after debts, expenses and legacies are paid.
Without doing any research, I do believe that the real property will have to be used to satisfy the specific bequest.
Thank you Judge. That is what I believe also, just could not find specific law on point.