Dispatches from the Farthest Outposts of Civilization

February 16, 2018 § Leave a comment


Attorney’s Fees for Enforcement Sans Contempt

February 14, 2018 § Leave a comment

Back on May 18, 2017, I posted here about the COA’s decision in Carter v. Davis, in which the COA decided, among several issues raised, that the chancellor erred in awarding attorney’s fees in a contempt case where the defendant was found not to be in contempt, but the trial judge awarded fees based on the fact that his conduct had made the filing of the action necessary.

The MSSC granted cert on the sole issue of attorney’s fees.

In the case of Carter v. Davis, handed down January 25, 2018, the MSSC reversed the COA on the point and reinstated the chancellor’s decision. Judge Maxwell wrote for the court:

¶5. The chancellor did not have to find Davis in willful contempt to award her attorney’s fees. Instead, we have long held that, when there has been a default in child support, the party seeking to enforce the decree is entitled to attorney’s fees, even when nonpayment was not due to willful contempt. Mizell v. Mizell, 708 So. 2d 55, 65 (Miss. 1998); Moore v. Moore, 372 So. 2d 270, 272 (Miss. 1979), overruled on other grounds by Dep’t of Human Servs., State of Miss. v. Fillingane, 761 So. 2d 869, 871 (Miss. 2000); Pearson v. Hatcher, 279 So. 2d 654, 656 (Miss. 1973). “Otherwise, the responsibility of support would be reduced by the amount the party seeking to enforce the decree would be required to pay an attorney to enforce the decree.” Moore, 372 So. 2d at 272 (citing Pearson, 279 So. 2d at 656).

¶6. In reversing and rendering the attorney’s fees award based on no willful contempt, the Court of Appeals cited McKnight v. Jenkins, 155 So. 3d 730, 732 (Miss. 2013). But in that case, we found not only was there no willful contempt by the ex-wife who refused to pay a medical bill, we also found there was no obligation under the support order to pay the bill, which was really a litigation expense and not her child’s medical expense. Id. And we reversed both the underlying award and the attorney’s fees award connected to it. Id.

¶7. Here, by contrast, the chancellor found Davis had significant financial obligations under the divorce judgment. Though the chancellor credited Davis for his and his mother’s direct payments, the chancellor still found Davis had failed to comply fully with the terms of the judgment. As the chancellor noted in his order, Davis acknowledged the arrearage. And this arrearage required Carter to initiate this action. Therefore, the chancellor rightly recognized that Carter—just like the ex-wives in Mizell, Moore, and Pearson—was entitled to attorney’s fees, even though the chancellor did not find Davis in willful contempt based on the credits. See Mizell, 708 So. 2d at 65; Moore, 372 So. 2d at 272; Pearson, 279 So. 2d
at 656.

¶8. After finding attorney’s fees were appropriate, the chancellor then determined $7,500 to be a reasonable amount—a decision that fell within his “sound discretion.” Mizell, 708 So. 2d at 65. Because the chancellor supported his decision with record evidence, we find no abuse in his awarding Carter $7,500 in attorney’s fees. See id. (“We are reluctant to disturb a chancellor’s discretionary determination whether or not to award attorney fees and of the amount of any award.”).

¶9. For these reasons, while we affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment on the child support-credit issues, we reverse its decision to reverse and render the attorney’s fee award. We reinstate and affirm the judgment of the chancery court, which awarded Carter $3,276.66 in past-due child support and $7,500 in attorney’s fees.

The rule is that if you have to file an action to enforce an obligation imposed by court order, the filing of the action alone is sufficient to support award of attorney’s fees if the opposing party is found to be in default, even if there is no finding of contempt.

A Matter of Interest

February 13, 2018 § 1 Comment

It is well settled in Mississippi that a money judgment must bear interest from the date of rendition. I discussed the point in a previous post that you can read at this link.

But is the interest award to be simple interest or compound interest? The difference can be significant.

The question arose in the COA case, Orcutt v. Chambliss, et al., decided January 16, 2018. The case arose from a chancellor’s decision voiding a tax sale and finding that the tax-sale purchaser did not acquire title by adverse possession. In awarding a judgment for statutory damages, the chancellor compounded the interest. The COA reversed. Judge Lee’s opinion explained:

¶35.  … The chancellor erroneously calculated the statutory damages based upon compound interest … . As noted above, the statutes do not explicitly authorize compound interest. “The general rule is that ‘when interest is allowable, it is to be computed on a simple rather than compound basis in the absence of express authorization otherwise.’” Exxon Corp. v. Crosby-Miss. Res. Ltd., 40 F.3d 1474, 1489 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Stovall v. Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R., 722 F.2d 190, 192 (5th Cir. 1984)). Therefore, we reverse and remand in part for the chancellor to recalculate the amount of statutory damages—based upon simple interest—on all of the taxes Orcutt has paid since the tax sale in 1993.

That’s pretty much it. Interest on a judgment is to be simple unless the statute directs otherwise.

Spalding is Reversed

February 12, 2018 § 2 Comments

Last summer we posted here about the COA’s decision in Harris v. Harris, in which the court affirmed the chancellor’s decision to reduce alimony based on the ex-wife’s receipt of Social Security benefits derived from those of her husband. You can read my post at this link, if you care to. The chancellor and the COA relied on Spalding v. Spalding as authority for the proposition that the chancellor is required to give the alimony payer credit for Social Security benefits derivative of the payer’s.

The MSSC granted cert, and in Harris v. Harris, decided February 1, 2018, the court reversed the COA and the trial court, overruling Spalding. Here’s what Justice Chamberlin wrote for the court en banc:

¶19. Today, we hold that … Social Security benefits derived from the other spouse’s income do not constitute a special circumstance triggering an automatic reduction in alimony. When a spouse receives Social Security benefits derived from the other spouse’s income, the trial court must weigh all the circumstances of both parties and find that an unforseen material change in circumstances occurred to modify alimony. See Ivison, 762 So. 2d at 334 (holding that the circumstances of both parties are considered to determine whether there was a material change); see also
Tingle, 573 So. 2d 1389, 1391 (Miss. 1990) (holding that change in circumstances must be after-arising and unanticipated). To the extent that Spalding states otherwise, it is overruled.

You can read the other 18 paragraphs reasoning their way through the law of Mississippi and other jurisdictions to get to this point. The court remanded the case to the chancellor to analyze it under Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278, 1280 (Miss. 1993) to determine whether modification was warranted, and, if so, how to modify.

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems that one of the murkiest areas of alimony law is what effect retirement has on the obligation. Retirement is, after all, a foreseeable event. Social Security benefits are foreseeable. What are we supposed to do? One of the easiest answers until this case was that Social Security benefits derived from the payer created a credit. Now that certainty is taken away. I think lawyers should spend more time negotiating over the future of retirement benefits. Clients absolutely do not want to think or talk about it until retirement is the 500-pound gorilla knocking at the front door. But this decision leaves your clients little choice but to deal with it now or engage in expensive and impoverishing litigation later.

Things Judges Wish They had Known Before They Took the Bench

February 9, 2018 § 1 Comment

The National Judicial College’s Case in Point Publication included a piece, “50 Things Judges Wish They had Known Before They Took the Bench.” I thought I would share some of these submitted by judges from around the country, including one from a Mississippi Chancery Judge; can you guess which quote, and from which judge (Hint: no, It was not I).

Before I became a judge I wish I had known …

“Your jokes become funnier, you can jump higher, and you are more interesting after you become a judge. But they aren’t, you can’t, and you aren’t. So don’t believe anything otherwise.”

“That some people will think their Google search is the same as your law degree.”

“That it would be incredibly isolating. Professionally and socially there are so many situations that require me to withdraw to avoid an ex parte contact or avoid what might be construed as an appearance of impropriety … So much of my work is sitting alone with a file and a computer writing opinions, and during hearings you sit alone listening, not talking. It is lonely work.”

“How many times litigants, whether pro se or represented by counsel, fail to provide basic facts necessary to make a proper decision.”

“That folks really would believe that my court would be just like Judge Judy’s.”

“How isolating the job would be. In a small town, the isolation is devastating.”

“Remember that when most parties leave your proceedings, they will probably not remember what you did or what you said — they will remember how you made them feel. Treat every party with courtesy and respect.”

“That the better the lawyers’ performance in the courtroom, the better the judge’s rulings Professionalism and competency are  crucial to a fair and judicious system. Yet when I first sat on the bench, I gave advocates too much credit. Now I know better. And now I rule better.”

“I wish I had known (in my earlier life as an attorney) how I sounded to the judge when making an argument. I’d have said less.”

 “Even if germane and on point, never — ever — use the term nudum pactum in a full courtroom.”

“I wish I’d known that certain legal terms and phrases like ‘co-equal’ and ‘shall be adequately funded’ seem to be used more like punch lines by many members of the other two branches of government.”

“Good intentions always come with a critic.”

“It’s better to do ahead and do good than to fear lack of authority.”

“Never, NEVER go on the bench with a full bladder.”

Amendment Fail

February 7, 2018 § Leave a comment

I see all sorts of ways that people try to amend their pleadings. Some simply file amended pleadings without leave of court, whether within or without time for responsive pleadings. Some get a court order to amend and do so. I have seen some get a court order and never file an amended pleading. A few even comply strictly with the rule.

The COA decision in Estate of Flowers: Flowers v. Estate of Flowers, Flowers and Lang, decided January 2, 2018, involved a motion for leave to amend pleadings following a R12(b)(6) dismissal, and the chancellor’s refusal to allow the amendment. The COA affirmed. Judge Carlton wrote for the court:

 ¶59. Finally, Claire and Jane appeal the denial of Claire’s motion for leave to admit her amended petition for compensatory and punitive damages. Claire and Jane argue that leave to amend should have been granted because none of the respondents asserted that they would
be prejudiced if the motion were granted.

¶60. In her amended petition, Claire sought to include claims against the various attorneys involved in the representation of Richard’s estate, Brenda’s estate, and the guardianship of D.A. At a hearing on Claire’s motion, the chancellor made a bench ruling wherein he granted Oakes’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Claire’s petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The chancellor also granted Oakes’s and the Meltons’ (among others) motions to strike themselves as defendants in the cause due to Claire’s failure to obtain leave from the court under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to add them.

¶61. As stated, in response to the chancellor’s order of dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), on February 16, 2016, Claire filed a motion for leave to amend her petition for compensatory and punitive damages, and her amended petition for compensatory and punitive damages in accordance with Rule 15(a). In her motion, Claire stated that she “specifically requests that she be allowed to amend those portions of the complaints by which the court ruled were insufficient at stating a claim for relief. Those portions include stating fraud and negligence per se with the correct specificity.”

¶62. The defendants listed in Claire’s petition joined Oakes’s motion requesting that Claire’s motion for leave to amend be denied. The defendants argued that Claire failed to “attach a proposed amended petition that would permit the chancellor to determine whether justice requires that leave to amend be granted” and that the parties were “dismissed as [respondents] . . . as a result of [Claire’s] failure to obtain leave of court to add [them] as part[ies].”

¶63. We review the denial of a motion to amend for abuse of discretion. Crater v. Bank of New York Mellon, 203 So. 3d 16, 19 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). We will affirm the chancellor’s decision “unless the discretion he used is found to be arbitrary and clearly erroneous.” Breeden v. Buchanan, 164 So. 3d 1057, 1064 (¶27) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Poole ex rel. Poole v. Avara, 908 So. 2d 716, 721 (¶8) (Miss. 2005)).

¶64. Rule 15(a) provides as follows:

On sustaining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), . . . leave to amend shall be granted when justice so requires upon conditions and within time as determined by the court, provided matters outside the pleadings are not presented at the hearing on the motion.

Regarding Rule 15 amendments to pleadings, the supreme court has held as follows:

While proposed amendments have been liberally permitted throughout Mississippi legal history and are encouraged under Rule 15[,] a party cannot fail to convey the subject matter of the proposed amendment to the trial judge and if they do so fail, no error can be predicated on the judge’s failure to allow the amendment.

Parker v. Miss. Game & Fish Comm’n, 555 So. 2d 725, 730-31 (Miss. 1989). Additionally, in Price v. Price, 430 So. 2d 848, 849 (Miss. 1983) (citing Watts v. Patton, 66 Miss. 54, 5 So. 628 (1888)), the supreme court explained that a chancellor’s refusal to allow the amendment of a pleading cannot be reviewed on appeal where the record fails to show the proposed amendment.

¶65. In his order denying Claire’s motion for leave to amend in accordance with Rule 15(a), the chancellor explained the following: “[T]he motion filed by [Claire] fails to state how she would amend her prior pleadings or fails to attach a proposed amended pleading which would allow the court to determine whether justice required that she be given leave to file amended pleadings[.]” The record reflects that the motion to amend filed by Claire contained only bare allegations and contained no facts or actions from which to determine the existence of a cause of action. See also M.R.C.P. 9(b) (providing that fraud must be pled with specificity); Faul v. Perlman, 104 So. 3d 148, 156 (¶26) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)
(discussing the elements a plaintiff must show to establish negligence per se). The record reflects that the chancellor thus properly found that Claire failed to state a basis for amending her pleadings. See Parker, 555 So. 2d at 730-31.

¶66. Additionally, with respect to a claim of fraud, we recognize the following guidance:

[T]he facts on which the charge of fraud is predicated must be specifically stated with full definiteness of detail. No general averment of a fraudulent course of business, and no bare statement of a corrupt design on the part of the defendant, is sufficient. The acts themselves which are claimed to be fraudulent must be clearly set out. It must further appear by definite averment in what manner the fraudulent acts wrought injury to the complainant. Fraud cannot be inferred, but must be distinctly charged, and with such fullness and precision that a court of chancery would be enabled to grant full and complete relief and redress should the bill of complaint be taken as confessed.

Weir v. Jones, 84 Miss. 602, 36 So. 533, 534 (1904). Claire’s failure to provide a basis for amending her pleadings and her failure to plead fraud and negligence with the required specificity prevented the chancellor from determining whether Claire had a cause of action or just allegations without facts.

¶67. Furthermore, as previously stated, the record also shows that Oakes, Stuckey, Melton Jr., and Melton III were dismissed from the litigation as defendants because Claire failed to obtain leave of court before she added the attorneys as parties as required by Rule 21. Claire filed no appeal of the dismissal of the attorneys as parties. In Crater, 203 So. 3d at 21 (¶16), this Court addressed a Rule 15(a) motion to amend filed against a nonparty:

Because the motion to amend asserted claims only against a nonparty, devoid of any factual allegation, after the statute of limitations had run, and sought to exercise a statutory right that does not exist, the claims raised by [the petitioner] in her amended complaint were futile. Because the amendment was futile, the chancery court was not required to grant leave for the amendment. Therefore, the chancery judge did not abuse his discretion in ruling on the motion to dismiss prior to ruling on [the petitioner’s] motion to amend.

¶68. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the chancellor’s denial of Claire’s motion to amend.

Some afterthoughts:

  • Of course, any amended pleading must comply with R15 in order to do its job. My suggestion is to read the rule. I’ll bet most of you will be surprised at how many times you’ve failed to do it right.
  • When leave of court to amend is required, you must attach a copy of your proposed pleading so that the court can determine whether the motion should be granted. That’s especially true, as this case points out, where you are seeking to plead matters such as fraud that require specific allegations.
  • If you do not attach a copy of a proposed pleading and the judge overrules your motion to amend, you can’t complain about it on appeal.
  • When your pleadings are dismissed for failure to state a claim, don’t assume that you have the automatic right to amend. File a motion and attach your proposed pleading. Then, if the judge grants your motion, file the proposed pleading.
  • Again: if the judge grants your motion to amend, remember to file the pleading.
  • R21 requires a court order to add parties. In this case, the plaintiffs merely added parties without a court order, which allowed those parties to escape on a motion to dismiss, which snagged the plaintiffs on the statute of limitations (SOL).
  • SOL is seldom fatal in chancery matters, but that’s no reason not to amend and join parties per the rules.

It Ain’t Over ’til it’s Over

February 6, 2018 § 1 Comment

It’s a hoary. ancient maxim of the law that “There must be an end to litigation,” a principle that was called into question in the case of Sandrock v. Sandrock, handed down from the COA on January 16, 2018.

The Sandrock saga began on August 1, 2005, when Jason Sandrock and his father Fred purported to enter into an agreement via a one-page, notarized document styled “Mortgage Agreement.” The agreement was for a 3,300 square-foot home in Bay St. Louis in exchange for 300 consecutive payments of $1,000 each. Neither Jason’s wife Cassie nor Fred’s wife Joellen were parties to the agreement. Jason and Cassie had been building the structure on Fred’s and Joellen’s property since November, 2004.

Before Jason and Cassie could move into their new digs, however, Hurricane Katrina severely damaged the house on August 29, 2005. The insurance company issued a check for $148, 601, to Jason, Fred, and Joellen. Jason was listed as the insured, and Fred and Joellen were listed as Mortgagees. An MDA grant check was issued to Jason, with no lienholder listed, in the amount of $149,327. Cassie was not named on either check. Jason turned over most of the money to Fred and Joellen.

On January 15, 2009, Jason and Cassie were divorced. In the divorce judgment, the chancellor found no credible evidence that Jason owed any debt to his parents for the property, and that the funds used to build the house were a gift to Jason and Cassie from Fred and Joellen. He also found that both Jason and Cassie had devoted significant time to building the house. In making equitable distribution, the chancellor ordered that the insurance and grant funds by divided equally, and for Cassie to execute a quitclaim deed to the property in favor of Jason.

In March, 2009, Cassie filed for contempt because Jason had not paid her the sums due. Jason counterclaimed asking the court to “correct” its divorce judgment to show that Fred and Joellen were owners of the property, and, therefore, that the insurance proceeds were properly theirs. The counterclaim was denied.

In May, 2009, Fred and Joellen filed a pleading seeking to intervene in the divorce action that had been adjudicated four months previously. Their motion was denied.

At this point, none of the court’s rulings or judgments had been appealed.

After the court denied their motion to intervene, Fred and Joellen filed a petition for judicial foreclosure on the property against Jason and Cassie.

On May 9, 2011, Jason filed an MRCP 60(b) motion asking for relief from the judgment to pay Cassie.

On February 23, 2012, a different chancellor from the one handling the divorce issues entered a judgment allowing the foreclosure in favor of Fred and Joellen against Jason. Cassie was not a record title holder. The court’s decision specifically did not adjudicate what effect its decision had on either the previous divorce judgment or Cassie’s interest in the money or equitable interest in the property.

On November 7, 2013, the chancellor denied Jason’s pending R60 motion.

On December 26, 2013, Jason filed a complaint for declaratory relief and injunction again seeking relief from the judgment. Following a hearing, the court denied Jason any relief on March 23, 2015. The chancellor — yet another different from the two previous — found that the relief sought by Jason was “nearly identical” to that he had sought earlier in his R60 motion. The chancellor found that, since Jason had not appealed the 2009 judgment, it was final.

Jason filed a timely R59 motion. After hearing the matter on April 7, 22016, the court denied the motion except to amend a prior order to state that Joellen had been a witness in the divorce proceeding.

Jason appealed from the denial of his R57 claim for declaratory judgment. Predictably, the COA affirmed. Judge Barnes wrote for a unanimous court:

¶18. As to the denial of Jason’s claims, under Rule 57(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, “[c]ourts of record within their respective jurisdictions may declare rights, status, and other legal relations regardless of whether further relief is or could be claimed.” M.R.C.P. 57(a). On the other hand, a trial court may deny a complaint for declaratory judgment “where such judgment, if entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.” Id. Noting that Jason failed to appeal the 2009 divorce judgment, and Fred and Joellen did not appeal the denial of their motion to intervene, Chancellor Persons held:

Once a judgment becomes final, it is dispositive as to all issues arising from a claim that were, or could have been, asserted by the parties to the litigation. Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Thomas Truck Lease, Inc., 790 So. 2d 881[, 885 (¶12)] (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).

With the exception of Jason’s additional claims that the divorce judgment was not properly enrolled, the relief requested by Jason in his Complaint for Declaratory Relief is nearly identical to the relief that he sought in his [c]ounter[c]laim to [c]orrect [the] judgment, and similar to the claim that he made in his Rule 60 motion, both of which were denied by the [c]ourt. In the absence of any timely[]filed notice of appeal or any pending appeal action filed on behalf of Jason Sandrock or Fred[] and Joellen Sandrock seeking relief from either the Judgment of Divorce or from the Order which denied intervention in the divorce action, the Final Judgment of Divorce, including the [s]tipulation executed by the parties, is a valid [j]udgment upon which this [c]ourt relies and upon which the parties are bound.

Subsequently, in his bench ruling denying the Appellants’ motions for reconsideration, the chancellor concluded:

The [c]ourt and the law seek[] finality. We have two judgments, both of which are final. To the extent they’re in conflict, no one appealed. In essence, you can’t do what should have been an appeal now in a declaratory judgment action, which, in essence, we have the issues [of] res judicata, law of the case, all sorts of the legal doctrines here that prohibit us – or me from reopening these things.

¶19. We find no abuse of discretion in the chancery court’s findings. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that “[a] final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties and their privies from relitigating claims that were or could have been raised in that action.” Walton v. Bourgeois, 512 So. 2d 698, 701 (Miss. 1987). “A final judgment has been defined by this Court as a judgment adjudicating the merits of the controversy [that] settles all the issues as to all the parties.” Sanford v. Bd. of Supervisors, 421 So. 2d 488, 490-91 (Miss. 1982) (citations omitted). “[A]n order is considered final if it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” LaFontaine v. Holliday, 110 So. 3d 785, 787 (¶8) (Miss. 2013). Jason’s complaint is, quite simply, a collateral attack on the 2009 divorce judgment, which awarded one-half of the insurance and grant proceeds to Cassie. The 2009 judgment, despite the Appellants’ argument to the contrary, is a final judgment. While not contained in the record, the chancery court noted that Jason had filed a counterclaim to correct the judgment, which was denied by the court. His Rule 60 motion was also denied. He did not appeal either decision. Thus, his request for declaratory relief is barred. The supreme court has held: “Res judicata bars all issues that might have been (or could have been) raised and decided in the initial suit, plus all issues that were actually decided in the first cause of action.” Little v. V & G Welding Supply Inc., 704 So. 2d 1336, 1337 (¶8) (Miss. 1997) (citation omitted). Additionally,

[r]es judicata is fundamental to the equitable and efficient operation of the judiciary and “reflects the refusal of the law to tolerate a multiplicity of litigation.” Little . . ., 704 So. 2d [at] 1337 [(¶8)]. . . . The courts cannot revisit adjudicated claims and “all grounds for, or defenses to recovery that were available to the parties in the first action, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding, are barred from re[]litigation in a subsequent suit under the doctrine of res judicata.” Alexander v. Elzie, 621 So. 2d 909, 910 (Miss. 1992).

Harrison v. Chandler-Sampson Ins., 891 So. 2d 224, 232 (¶23) (Miss. 2005) (emphasis added).

¶20. For res judicata to apply, four identities must be present: “(1) identity of the subject matter of the action; (2) identity of the cause of/civil action; (3) identity of the parties to the cause of/civil action; and (4) identity of the quality or character of a person for or against whom the claim is made.” Miller v. Miller, 838 So. 2d 295, 297 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (citations omitted). Here, the first two identities – the subject matter and the cause of action, namely the underlying facts and circumstances – are the same. In both the 2009 divorce judgment and the complaint for declaratory relief, Jason and Cassie are parties. The only difference between the two causes of action is that Jason added Fred and Joellen as defendants to the second cause. But since Jason made no claims against them, and they never acted as adverse parties to Jason (as evidenced by the fact they are now joined with him as appellants), we find the third identity requirement is met. As to the fourth identity, Cassie was named as a defendant in both causes of action. Therefore, we find all four identities are present.

¶21. Accordingly, we affirm the chancery court’s denial of Jason’s complaint for declaratory relief.

In case you hadn’t counted, 88 months — seven years and four months — after the divorce action, we finally have achieved finality. That is, we have unless Jason files something else along the lines of his earlier attempts. Stay tuned.





Bills Still Alive

February 5, 2018 § Leave a comment

The deadline to report bills out of committee passed last Tuesday, and, as expected, many bills fell away. The survivors of interest to chancery practitioners are listed below.

You can access the text of the listed bills at this link.

HB 419       Authorize Mental Health Courts.

HB 801       Emergency placement of children in home of a relative.

HB 827       Register mobile home as real or personal property.

HB 936       Impose privilege tax on attorneys who practice in state but do not maintain domicile or regular business place here.

HB 962       Revise requirements to file petition for grandparent visitation.

HB 1084      Terminate parental rights as to child conceived of rape.

HB 1091      Clarify that wrongful death claim may be opened outside estate.

HB 1169      Definition of personal property.

HB 1306      Construction dispute resolution agreements void in certain conditions.

SB 2044      Expand authority of Chief Justice to appoint special judges.

SB 2473      Revise Residential Landlord/Tenant Act to provide more protection to landlords.

SB 2557      Revise age of majority.

SB 2782      Revise parties entitled to notice in muniment of title cases.

SB 2810      Allow DHS to perform criminal background checks on all employees, contractors, and volunteers.

SB 2886      Allow representative or guardian to place security freeze on credit report of protected consumer.

An old legislator once told me that “a bill is never dead until it’s dead, dead, dead.” Meaning that some measure that you were sure had been laid to rest can yet rise zombie-like from its tomb to creep fully into life. So if there is some bill that you have been following — pro or con — you might want to keep one eye peeled for it just to see whether it finds its way back out into the arena.

“Quote Unquote”

February 2, 2018 § 2 Comments

“They will all promise every man, woman, and child in the country whatever he, she, or it wants. They’ll all be roving the land looking for chances to make the rich poor, to remedy the irremediable, to succor the unsuccorable, to unscramble the unscrambleable, to dephlogisticate the undephlogisticable. They will all be curing warts by saying words over them, and paying off the national debt with money no one will have to earn. When one of them demonstrates that twice two is five, another will prove that it is six, six and a half, ten, twenty, etc. In brief, they will divest themselves of their character as sensible , candid, and truthful men, and become simply candidates for office, bent only on collaring votes. They will all know by then, even supposing that some of them don’t know it now, that votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense, but by talking nonsense, and they will apply themselves to the job with a hearty yo-heave-ho. Most of them, before the uproar is over, will actually convince themselves. The winner will be whoever promises the most with the least probability of delivering anything.”  —  H.L. Mencken

“I always voted at my party’s call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.”  —  W. S. Gilbert, H. M. S. Pinafore

“We’d all like t’vote fer th’best man, but he’s never a candidate.”  —  Kin Hubbard


Where Am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for February, 2018 at The Better Chancery Practice Blog.