WHAT YOUR UNCONTESTED PROOF NEEDS TO INCLUDE
May 28, 2013 § Leave a comment
I’ve posted here before about the inadequate proof that most attorneys offer when presenting an uncontested divorce or child custody case.
I’m not talking here about corroboration and substantial evidence of the grounds in a divorce case. I’m talking about addressing all of the applicable factors that pertain to your particular case. For instance … After establishing that your client is entitled to a divorce, he says he wants the house and all the equity. Is that good enough? Or your client testifies that she wants custody and has had the child with her for the past 18 months. Is that all you need?
The answer in both scenarios is “No.” You need to give the judge enough evidence to enable findings on all of the Ferguson factors for the judge to award that equity, and you need to address the Albright factors for the judge to make sufficient findings to award custody. And so on with all of the type cases that involve factors.
That is what the MSSC held in Lee v. Lee, 78 So.3d 326 (Miss. 2012).
I usually sign will sign the judgment based on a modicum of proof. If, however, a proper post-trial motion is filed, I will set aside that part of the judgment that is not supported with findings on the applicable factors as required by case law. As the court said in Lee, at 329:
¶13. By failing to appear at the hearing, [the appellant] forfeited his right to present evidence and prosecute his divorce complaint. But he did not forfeit the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence or the judgment. And whether absent or present at the trial, the appropriate time to challenge a judgment is after it has been entered. [Appellant] did so in his Rule 59 motion and at the hearing following it. The fact that [he] failed to attend the divorce trial does not relieve the chancellor of his duty to base his decision on the evidence, regardless of by whom presented, nor did it nullify this Court’s mandate in Ferguson.
It’s so simple to take the few extra minutes to put on the evidence that will support the required findings. Then, you incorporate them into your judgment and the judge will gladly sign it. Only, don’t expect the judge to sign it if she did not hear testimony on point.
If your judgment has the necessary findings, it should withstand any post-trial attack based on that reason. Your client will appreciate that. After all, that’s what you were paid to do.
BRIGHT LINE? WHAT BRIGHT LINE?
May 14, 2013 § 2 Comments
The line of demarcation — also referred to in the cases and in legal circles as “the valuation date” — is an important concept in divorce law. It’s something we’ve addressed here in prior posts.
Under the Ferguson case, the trial court must first identify which assets are marital, then value them, and then divide them equitably. The date that the court picks to establish the values of marital assets is crucial, since appreciation and depreciation mean that the value on one particular date may be sugnificantly different from that on another date.
Some lawyers argue that there is a “bright line” rule that the entry of a temporary order in a divorce or separate maintenance case cuts off all further accumulation of marital interests, and, indeed, some case law would seem to indicate that.
But the MSSC, in the case of Collins v. Collins, handed down May 9, 2013, makes it clear that there is no bright line rule. Here’s what Justice Coleman’s opinion says on the point:
[¶9] … The law in Mississippi is that the date on which assets cease to be marital and become separate assets – what we refer to herein as the point of demarcation – can be “either the date of separation (at the earliest) or the date of divorce (at the latest).” Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So. 3d 274, 285 (¶ 27) (Miss. 2009).
¶10. In Selman v. Selman, 722 So. 2d 547 (Miss. 1998), the wife had a retirement fund, and the chancellor awarded the husband half its value even though the fund did not begin to accrue until after the husband had vacated the marital home. Id. at 553 (¶ 22). When including the fund in the marital assets, “the chancellor stated only that ‘[t]he law says that until they are divorced, everything is on the table.’” Id. Applying the well-settled manifest error standard of review, id. at 551 (¶ 12), the Selman Court reversed the chancellor’s ruling and wrote, “while the marriage had not legally terminated, the relationship out of which equitable distribution arises had ended some months earlier.” Id. at 553 (¶ 25).
¶11. A temporary order may [emphasis in original] be considered by the chancellor to be a line of demarcation between marital and separate property, Cuccia v. Cuccia, 90 So. 3d 1228, 1233 (¶ 8) (Miss. 2012); see also Wheat v. Wheat, 37 So. 3d 632, 637-38 (¶¶ 16-18) (Miss. 2010) (recognizing, in dicta, that a temporary support order can indicate the demarcation point), but we have never held that it must. However, in Pittman v. Pittman, 791 So. 2d 857 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001), the Mississippi Court of Appeals held, “[T]he temporary support order serves the same purposes as a separate maintenance order and that property accumulated thereafter is separate property.” Id. at 864 (¶ 19). In so writing, the Pittman Court created the impression that Mississippi now has established a rule that temporary orders always and in every case provide the mark of demarcation. Temporary support orders vary. They may include issues such as which spouse controls the marital home, automobiles, and bank accounts, or they may simply, as in the case sub judice, provide only for temporary custody and support of a minor child. Because of the degree of variance in temporary orders and the particularities of every marital dissolution, we reaffirm our holding in Lowrey and hold that it is necessary that a chancellor maintain discretion to decide in each instance whether a temporary order is the proper line of demarcation. To the extent that the Pittman opinion can be read to create a rule that a temporary support order necessarily and always indicates the point of demarcation, we overrule it.
¶12. In the case sub judice, the chancellor did not explicitly state what date she chose as the date of demarcation, but from the substance of the opinion, it is clear she chose the date of the divorce. In their briefs, the parties accept that the chancellor used the date of the divorce as the point of demarcation. The temporary support order in the instant case dealt only with child custody and temporary child support. It did not go so far toward separating the parties’ several jointly-held assets that we would hold the chancellor abused her discretion in not finding it to be the point of demarcation.
¶13. However, the Cuccia Court noted that the chancellor must set out the specific date used as the line of demarcation and remanded the case partly for the chancellor’s failure to do so. Cuccia, 90 So. 3d at 1233 (¶ 11). The chancellor did not do so here, but, as noted above, the parties do not dispute the issue. We take the instant opportunity to write that had the issue been disputed, or had the chancellor’s order been ambiguous as to the demarcation date used, we would have remanded the case as did the Cuccio [sic] Court. We reiterate here that chancellors should indicate in the record what date they choose for the point of demarcation and why they choose it.
That should settle the debate once and for all that the demarcation date is at the discretion of the chancellor, who must always identify the date chosen and explain why that particular date was selected.
The downside to this is that when your client asks you about whether it would be wise to acquire any new assets between separation and the date of the divorce, your answer now will be an unqualified, “I don’t have any idea.”
As a trial practice matter, I seldom hear any evidence or argument as to what the valuation date should be. If you have a case where one valuation date is advantageous to your client as opposed to another, you should be zealous about informing the judge what date should be selected, and why it should be selected. For instance, if your client acquired a home after the separation, and has accumulated wealth after the separation, you want a valuation date near that separation date, not at the date of the divorce. If you don’t make that clear in the record, the judge might choose a date that’s not so nifty for your client, and you’ll have to ask the COA to fix it.
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AS THE GATEWAY TO ALIMONY
May 7, 2013 § Leave a comment
The COA case of Jones v. Jones, decided April 30, 2012, is a reminder that, if the equitable division of the marital estate has made adequate provision for the spouses, there should be no award of alimony — not even nominal alimony.
In Jones, the chancellor carefully considered and analyzed all of the Ferguson factors as they applied to the case, and specifically found that the equitable division made sufficient provision for Jane Jones (she received 62.5% of the marital estate). He nonetheless awarded her nominal alimony of $10 a month in case she needed alimony in the future.
The COA affirmed the chancellor’s decision on equitable distribution, but reversed and rendered as to the nominal alimony. Judge Maxwell wrote for a unanimous court:
¶35. However, we do find manifest error with the award of “nominal” permanent—or periodic—alimony in the amount of $10 per month. See Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278, 1280 (Miss. 1993) (reviewing alimony awards for manifest error). We note the chancellor correctly identified and applied the Armstrong factors. See id. But he did so after acknowledging he had made sufficient provision for Jane through the equitable division of the property so that permanent alimony was not needed. Alimony should only be considered if the property division leaves one spouse in a deficit. Johnson, 650 So. 2d at 1287. “If there are sufficient assets to provide for both parties, then there is no more to be done.” Carter v. Carter, 98 So. 3d 1109, 1112 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Johnson, 650 So. 2d at 1287).
¶36. By referring to the award as “nominal” alimony, it does not appear that the chancellor was trying to address an actual deficit in the property award. Rather, he admits he was simply leaving the door open in case future events prove Jane has a need and John has an ability to pay. Such a contingency plan, while well-meaning, simply is not supported by our law. Alimony is to be considered as a remedy to an actual insufficiency in the marital assets, not as a contingency for a possible insufficiency in the future. Because the chancellor found the division of marital property left no need for alimony, we find it was error for the chancellor to nonetheless award “nominal” alimony. We reverse and render the award of $10 per month in permanent alimony award.
A good way to think about this is that equitable division is the gateway to alimony. Only after the chancellor has evaluated the Ferguson factors and adjudicated equitable division, and then having found that the equitable division leaves a discrepancy, may the chancellor even consider awarding periodic or rehabilitative alimony.
A caveat: Lump sum alimony, contrary to periodic or rehabilitative alimony, is a tool to achieve an equitable division of the marital estate.
Another consideration to bear in mind: I have tried contested cases where the lawyers have stipulated that the only issue is alimony, and they offered no proof whatsoever on the Ferguson factors. That, in my opinion, plants error in the record. You can not get to alimony without first going through Ferguson.
THE MISCHIEF OF “FAMILY SUPPORT”
April 4, 2013 § 3 Comments
I’ve spoken here before about the mischief that can arise when one uses the ambiguous term “family support” instead of terms of art such as “child support,” “alimony,” and “property division” that are familiar to our courts. As I said in a previous post, the repercussions can be quite unexpected and unpleasant for your client.
In a decision handed down March 11, 2013, the US Tax Court in the case of DeLong v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, ruled that the term “family support” creates an alimony obligation, and not a child support obligation.
You can read the decision for yourself, but it essentially turns on the point that since the obligation is not specifically denominated as child support the IRS will not consider it such.
This case arises out of a California divorce judgment. Note that the opinion states that the tax court will look to state law for how the state would treat the obligation. If this were a Mississippi case, the tax court would, to the best of my knowledge, find no helpful authority because the term “family support” is unknown under our law.
There are some serious side-effects from a case such as this. Child support is not deductible by the payer, and it is not income to the payee. Alimony is, however, deductible by the payer, and it most definitely is income to the payee. So, in this case, Mr. Delong got to deduct the payments under the divorce judgment, and the former Mrs. D. gets a bill for income taxes on the payments. If you had negotiated the settlement for Mrs. Delong and that is what she expected as an outcome, then you’re in good shape. If, on the other hand, she was not expecting a tax bill, you’d better look out.
And if the judge, in a comatose moment, injects that kind of language into a judgment, protect your client by filing a timely MRCP 59 motion to get the judge to correct the ambiguity.
In Mississippi, payments are either alimony, or child support, or property division. Denominate them as such, allocating the specific amounts under each. Never use combined language like “Husband shall pay to wife the sum of $2,500 each month as alimony and child support.” And never use ambiguous, non-legal language like “family support” when there are perfectly suitable, meaningful terms like “child support,” “alimony” and “property division” that do the job quite well.
Thanks to Justin Cobb, Esq.
ALIENATION OF AFFECTION: A DISH BEST SERVED COLD
February 12, 2013 § 3 Comments
Alienation of affection survives the Mississippi legislature yet again, per Randy Wallace.
Here’s Philip Thomas’s take.
In the 21st century, what is the justification for continuing this cause of action in effect? Don’t the equitable distribution principles take care of this? Doesn’t the tort simply add a distorting feature to the equitable distribution arrangement?
Our family law has been evolving away from the nineteenth-century retribution-based model to today’s equitable relief, based on valuations and equities. This tort just does not fit.
Maybe some day all of our marital-dissolution law, including associated tort law, will move into the 21st century (hopefully before the 22nd century).
A COMPASS HEADING FOR DIVISION OF THE MARITAL ESTATE
January 23, 2013 § 4 Comments
In an equitable distribution case where there was a temporary order that provided for no support, is the date of that temporary order the demarcation line for purposes of classifying and valuing marital property?
Before we talk about how to answer the question, let me remind you that the the so-called demarcation line is important to delineate in an equitable distribution case. Depending on where the line is drawn, assets can increase or decrease by tens of thousands of dollars, or even lose value altogether, and your client who purchased a new pickup after the separation may be terribly chagrined to learn that his philandering estranged wife owns a part of it.
The line of demarcation is something we’ve talked about before here and here.
The general rule, in essence, is that marriage is deemed over for the purpose of classifying or valuing assets on entry of the final judgment, and any property or value acquired before that date is marital, unless there was a temporary order, in which event the date of the temporary order becomes the demarcation line. There are some exceptions in case law, but this is the general rule.
So, to get back to the original question, the COA confronted this very issue in the case of Mauldin v. Mauldin, decided January 15, 2013. In this case, Jim and Donna Mauldin found themselves in equitable distribution. Jim had bought some assets after a temporary order was entered, and the judge nonetheless included them among the marital assets subject to division. The COA opinion, by Judge Irving, stated:
¶13. Although the divorce decree did not specifically state the date that the marriage ended for purposes of classifying marital and separate property, it is clear that the chancery court used the date of divorce rather than the date of the temporary order. As previously stated, absent the entry of a separate-maintenance or temporary-support order, marital property continues to accumulate until the date of divorce. Although the chancery court entered a temporary order in this case, the order did not provide for temporary support. Therefore, Jim and Donna’s marital assets continued to accumulate until the date of their divorce. Accordingly, even though Jim purchased his motorcycle and his truck after his separation from Donna, the chancery court properly classified these assets as marital property. Additionally, the increase in Jim’s retirement account since his separation from Donna is marital property because the increase occurred during the marriage. This issue is without merit. [Emphasis added]
This case underscores what I have pointed out before, that it can be a two-edged sword when you don’t get a temporary support order entered. Yes, your client gets to dodge the bullet of any temporary support, but the asset values, as well as the inventory of marital assets, continue to change, often not in your client’s favor.
Put some thought in the strategy and tactics you should best employ for the benefit of your client in these cases. What is best for one client will not be the same for another. Knowing the rule, you will be in a position to plot the best course.
CATES v. SWAIN REDUX
November 26, 2012 § 1 Comment
This from the MSSC decisions of November 15, 2012:
Mona Cates v. Elizabeth Swain; Tate Chancery Court; LC Case #: 06-6-243(PL); Ruling Date: 10/29/2010; Ruling Judge: Percy Lynchard, Jr.; Disposition: Petition for writ of certiorari filed by Elizabeth Swain is granted. To Grant: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. To Deny: Randolph, J. Not Participating: Lamar, J. Order entered.
You may recall that this is the April, 2012, COA case in which Judge Maxwell’s opinion held in essence that equitable relief is not available to enforce implied contractual rights between unmarried cohabitants. The holding which was based on the MSSC decision in Estate of Alexander, 445 So. 2d 836, 840 (Miss. 1984), that any such relief must be created by act of the legislature. The decision also touched on rights of unmarried couples in relationships nearly tantamount to marriage. You can read my post about Cates v. Swain here.
So what does the grant of cert in this case portend?
It seems unlikely that the court would have granted cert merely to reiterate what Judge Maxwell said in his excellent exposition on Alexander. And it seems just as unlikely that the MSSC would go so far as to reverse Alexander.
But when one looks at Cates v. Swain, it seems that there are some inequities that could be addressed without sweeping aside Alexander. After all, the court did say in that case that, “While the judicial branch is not without power to fashion remedies in this area, we are unwilling to extend equitable principles to the extent plaintiff would have us to do, since recovery based on principles of contracts implied in law essentially would resurrect the old common-law marriage doctrine which was specifically abolished by the Legislature.” That seems to me to leave some wiggle room on at least two points: One, that the judicial branch has the power to fashion remedies in this area, and might do so in this case; and two, that equitable remedies may be narrowly crafted to address the inequities without creating the problems contemplated in Alexander.
It will interesting to see how this develops. Stay tuned.
PINNING DOWN THE MEANDERING LINE OF DEMARCATION
October 15, 2012 § 2 Comments
You might recall that I whined back in July about the Cuccia case from the MSSC that sent a case back to the chancellor to establish the line of demarcation for accumulation of marital equity. There was a temporary order in Cuccia, which under the case of Pittman v. Pittman, 791 So.2d 857, 864 (Miss.App. 2001), would have seemed to settle the question. Not so, said the high court, and sent it back.
So, with Cuccia and Pittman in mind, let’s look at this scenario: You represent the husband who at the time of the separation in 2004 has around $120,000 in a 401(k) account, and $270,000 in a pension fund, some of the latter of which is pre-marital. The parties file divorce pleadings in 2005, and continue legal sparring, but neither brings any request for temporary relief before the court.
In March, 2011, the chancellor adjudicated the case, dividing the 401(k) account as of the date of the divorce, and dividing other marital assets, including the pension, as of the date of the separation.
Your client is unhappy with the facts that (a) all of the other assets except the 401(k) were divided using the date of separation, and (b) the chancellor included the entire 401(k) value in the division, since it had appreciated by about $85,000 in the seven years from the separation to the final judgment, without any direct or indirect contribution by his wife. He tells you to appeal.
The above is what happened in Welch v. Welch, decided by the COA October 9, 2012.
As for the inconcistency in division dates among the assets, the COA brushed that argument aside by pointing out that Mr. Welch (Henry) had not contested the division of the pension, and, without saying so, that if he had he would have been even more unhappy because he might have lost even more ground to his wife (Susan). Judge Irving’s opinion explains why:
¶13. Based on the above, it is clear that the chancery court used the date of separation forpurposes of classifying the marital and separate portions of Henry’s pension. However, Henry does not challenge the court’s classification of his pension; instead, he argues that the same approach should be applied to his 401(k). Therefore, according to Henry, the chancery court should have found that any appreciation in the balance of his 401(k) account following the couple’s separation on December 23, 2004, was his separate property.
¶14. However, because there was no temporary-support order or separate-maintenanceorder entered in this case, the end date for the tallying of marital property was the date of the final judgment of divorce. Henry points out the inequity of awarding Susan one half of the entire value of his 401(k) given the Welches’ lengthy separation prior to divorce. However, this Court has previously held that a husband’s investment accounts were marital even though both accounts were opened after the couple separated and the husband was the sole contributor to the accounts. Stone v. Stone, 824 So. 2d 645, 647 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). This Court noted that even though the Stones were “separated and living apart prior to the divorce, [they] did not seek any order of separate maintenance[.]” Id. at 648 (¶7). Consequently, there was “no clear line of demarcation” after which the couple’s assets stopped being marital other than the date of the judgment of divorce. Id.
¶15. In Stone, the parties had been separated for over five years when the chancery court granted their divorce. Id. at 646 (¶¶1-2). Nonetheless, this Court held that property acquired during the separation was marital. While the Welches were separated for over seven years, we do not find that the length of their separation warrants a departure from our holding in Stone or existing supreme court precedent. As all of Henry’s contributions to the 401(k) account and its appreciation in value occurred during the marriage, the chancery court did not err in classifying the entire balance as marital property. This issue is without merit.
Here are a few points to ponder:
- I am sure Henry and his lawyers were delighted when Susan did not press for temporary support. After all, paying money to an estranged wife is like buying oats for a dead horse, isn’t it? But look at what the non-entry of a temporary order in this case wound up costing Henry in terms of his 401(k), and could have cost him had the chancellor applied the judgment date to division of the pension and other assets. It could be that Henry saved money over the long (seven year) run, or maybe he didn’t. We’ll never know for sure. But the holding in this case is something you need to discuss with your client before taking the bait and letting the case go ahead sans a temporary order.
- Read Cuccia, Godwin, Pittman and Welch and get an appreciation for how important it is to set a demarcation date. The trend seems to be away from discretion in the chancellor, and toward bright-line rules, but if there’s any wiggle room, exploit it for the benefit of your client. Try to persuade the judge to set the line where it will do your client the most good.
- This case did not address the propriety of the chancellor using different demarcation dates for different assets. Is that kosher? We don’t know for certain, because the COA did not take it on directly due to the way Henry framed his issues on appeal. My guess is that, unless the chancellor has a really well-reasoned, substantial reason, it’s not a good idea to use different demarcation dates.
YET ANOTHER MILITARY DIVORCE POTHOLE
September 10, 2012 § 2 Comments
Representing military parties in a divorce case got a little more difficult a couple of weeks ago, and you need to pay attention or you might unwittingly victimize a client.
The problem lies in the intersection between state divorce law and federal statues governing military benefits.
The latest case is Mallard v. Burkart, decided by the MSSC on August 30, 2012. The parties were divorced in 2001. A significant part of the financial settlement that Burkart received was 40% of Mallard’s “disposable military retirement pay” for ten years. The language of the PSA to effect this division was as follows:
Pursuant to the Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act (“USFSPA”), 10 U.S.C. §1408, the Court makes the finding followings of fact:
(A) That the Husband is currently an active duty service member in the United States Air Force.
(B) That Husband’s rights under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act have been observed in these proceedings.
(C) That Wife and Husband were married for at least ten (10) years during which Husband performed at least ten (10) years creditable service, making Wife eligible for involuntary military deductions under The USFSPA at such time [a]s Husband becomes entitled to retirement pay.
(D) Wife is awarded 40% of Husband’s disposable military retired pay for ten (10) years unconditional. Wife shall continue to receive 40% of Husband’s disposable military retired pay after ten (10) years if she does not remarry or has not lived with someone for a cumulative of sixty (60) days. Payments shall continue until Wife remarries or lives with someone for a cumulative of sixty (60) days upon which time payments shall cease. It is Wife’s responsibility to notify the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and Husband of any change of eligibility for payment.
(E) The Husband voluntarily consents to the exercise of jurisdiction to the State of Mississippi, County of Forrest for division [of] military retired pay.
That would appear to me to be a competently drafted provision that invokes every element needed for Burkart to cash in on her prpoperty settlement. It would also appear to give Burkart a full 40% of Mallard’s retirement pay. But things are not always as they appear, are they?
At some point after the divorce, Mallard elected to take a 60% disability rating as part of his retirement pay. By doing so, under federal law, he reduced his “disposable military retired pay,” dollar for dollar, by 60%. He reduced his payments to Burkart by a corresponding amount, limiting his payments to his ex-wife to the non-disability portion of his retirement. Due to the election, his payments to Burkart fell from $571 a month to between $80 and $120.
When Mallard sued Burkart for modification on some custody issues that are not part of this appeal, Burkart counterclaimed for contempt, based on Mallard’s payment of reduced retirement benefits. She charged that Mallard had improperly structured his retirment so as to defeat her contractual rights in the PSA. The chancellor found for Burkart, awarding her a judgment for $21,213.57, and Mallard appealed.
The MSSC stated the issue before it: ” … today we must determine whether federal law preempts state law, thus precluding state courts from treating as property divisible upon divorce, military retirement pay waived by the military spouse in order to receive military [veterans’] disability benefits.” Justice Carlson’s opinion noted that this was a case of first impression in Mississippi.
The court held that the issue was disposed of in the US Supreme Court case of Mansell v. Mansell, 490 US 581 (1989), in which the high court held: “In this appeal, we decide whether state courts, consistent with the [USFSPA], may treat as property divisible upon divorce military retirement pay waived by the rtetiree in order to receive veterans’ disability benefits. We hold that they may not.”
Another post highlighting a similar preemption problem with military life insurance beneficiary designation is here.
A few observations:
- The MSSC opinion points out that it is unclear when Mallard was determined to be disabled. In my opinion, if the determination had predated the divorce, there is a fraud question in connection with the PSA.
- Considering the minefield of federal law and regulation dealing with retired service members, you might want to define your client’s settlement in terms of alimony and property settlement in set figures as opposed to percentages. I know that percentages are a good way to make sure your client is not short-changed, and I know that alimony can terminate, but wouldn’t Ms. Burkart have been better off with an agreement that Mallard would pay her $571 a month in alimony, or that same sum as a division of her property rights in his military retirement? Then it would have been Mallard’s problem to figure out how to pay it.
- What business do you have representing military parties — either husband or wife — if you don’t keep up with and fully grasp all the ins and outs of federal law and regulations governing military retirement?
None of this is a knock on the lawyers who participated in the drafting of the PSA in this case. This was, after all, a case of first impression in Mississippi. And, apparently and presumably, no one knew at the time of the divorce that there would be a disability election. If they had known, that Mansell case would have loomed large. Very large.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 