How Would You Change Rule 81?
February 8, 2019 § 4 Comments
If you were the Autocrat of Mississippi Chancery jurisprudence, what changes, if any, would you make to R81 to improve its functionality?
The Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Civil Rules is studying the entire MRCP, at the request of the court, to update and recommend changes. R81 will be coming up soon.
Please leave a comment. I will pass all of them along to the committee, although I will only vouch for the ones with which I agree.
This is your chance to have some input.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 
I understand R81 often matters involve pro se litigants so, giving them notice to a date, time, place certain may be warranted…the first time…but for Pete’s sake, once they have been served initially let’s get rid of the onerous and burdensome linking orders of continuance and just proceed as a R4 case with regular notices and such. Jumping through those R81 linked order hoops wastes more client money than anything I have ever seen in any type of litigation.
Thanks for the comments. This is one of the points on my list to address.
I would ask that they clarify the issue of whether a Plaintiff, represented by an attorney, must be served personally with a Rule 81 summons when a Counterclaim is filed. We are erring on the side of caution and do serve a Rule 81, unless counsel waives, which they often do, as many chancellors read Rule 81 as requiring it. Others read Rule 5 b to allow for service on the attorney.
Clarity as to whether you are required to personally serve a party for a Rule 81 action while the case is still ongoing and all parties had been previously served. For example, are you required to personally serve the party with a motion for citation for contempt for a violation of the Temporary Order or will providing the motion to the attorney of record suffice.