The Missing Link
September 22, 2014 § 6 Comments
Here’s a typical trial scenario with inexperienced lawyers:
L1: Now, your honor, we ask that this document be admitted into evidence.
L2: Objection. Hearsay and not properly authenticated.
CH: Sustained.
L1: Um, uh, er. Okay. So, Mr. witness, what did you do next?
Stop right there. What did L1 not do that he should have done?
If you said, “Proffer,” or “Offer of proof,” you are correct. If you didn’t get it, well, you need to read — attentively — on.
In the case of Granger v. State, 853 So.2d 830, 833 (Miss. App. 2003), the court said, ” … a party who wishes to preserve an issue for appeal must make a proffer. Generally, when a party seeks to offer evidence which in turn is excluded by the trial court, before we will consider the matter on appeal the party must somehow have placed in the record the nature and substance of the proffered evidence for our consideration.”
MRE 103(a)(2) covers the point:
(a) Error may not be predicated on a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of a party is affected, and … (2) In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.
So, if L1 above could not have stumbled his way around the objections, he should have made a proffer that would look something like this:
L1: Now, your honor, we ask that this document be admitted into evidence.
L2: Objection. Hearsay and not properly authenticated.
CH: Sustained.
L1: We ask that this document be marked for identification purposes only.
That way, the substance of the document is part of the record, and the appellate court can look at it and judge for itself whether it should have been excluded.
Now, getting the document into the record may not be all the appellate court needs to know about it. The court may need to know more in order to make a proper decision. So L1 would then take that document marked for ID, tell the court he would “like to make a proffer,” or would “ask to make an offer of proof,” and when permission is granted either ask the witness questions about the document that make the record, or make a statement into the record about the document and its nature and substance, and why it was admissible. At the conclusion, L1 should say, “Now I am off proffer,” or “that concludes my offer of proof,” or words to that effect. Nothing said or offered in proffer is considered by the trial judge, but it may be considered by the appellate court.
That latter procedure also works where the trial judge has sustained objections to questions you ask the witness, and you need that information in the record.
Despite the language of the rule, you should never assume that the substance is apparent from the context. You should always make your proffer.
This is important because your key role at trial is not to have the trial judge rule for you, or to satisfy your client, or to be the best-dressed lawyer. Your key role is to MAKE A RECORD of every bit of evidence that supports every element of your case, in a way that is intelligible to the appellate court. No matter how convincing your case was to the trial judge, no matter how charming and persuasive you were in the court room, if you haven’t made a good record you run the substantial risk of getting your case reversed on appeal. Clients hate that.
If you do not make a proffer when the court excludes evidence, you are leaving a missing link in your record that may snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
When Can a Chancellor Award Punitive Damages?
September 18, 2014 § 4 Comments
Bar-Til entered into a contract as a subcontractor to do some work for Superior Asphalt on Pull-A-Part’s property. Problems arose with some environmental regulations that required some change orders. As the work expanded, so did the bills, and Superior quit paying the invoices.
Bar-Til sued Superior for breach of contract, breach of covenant of fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty. Bar-Til included Pull-A-Part on the basis that it had been unjustly enriched by Bar-Til’s uncompensated effort. When the trial was in its third day, Bar-Til moved to amend its complaint to allege bad faith, seeking punitive damages from Superior. The chancellor granted the motion, but clarified that only the issue of whether punitive damages would be an issue was before the court. He said that Bar-Til could “offer the proof of punitive damages when we decide if that’s going to be an issue.”
At the conclusion of trial, the chancellor found for Bar-Til on the breach of contract issue, and added that Bar-Til was even entitled to recover on a quantum meruit basis. The chancellor found that Bar-Til failed to prove that Superior acted in bad faith or breached a fiduciary duty, and so failed to prove entitlement to punitive damages. Since no punitive damages were due, attorney’s fees were denied. The judge also found that Bar-Til had failed to prove any of its claims against Pull-A-Part.
Bar-Til appealed on the chancellor’s denial of punitive damages, charging that the denial was in error, as was the chancellor’s refusal to hold a separate hearing on punitive damages.
In the COA case of Bar-Til, Inc. vs. Superior Asphalt, Inc. and Pull-A-Part, LLC, decided August 26, 2014, Judge Carlton spelled out the parameters for chancery judges considering whether to award punitive damages:
¶14. Our caselaw provides that “[t]he award of punitive damages, along with the amount of such, are within the discretion of the trier of fact.” Hurst v. Sw. Miss. Legal Servs. Corp., 708 So. 2d 1347, 1350 (¶6) (Miss. 1998) (citation omitted). In contract cases, “[p]unitive damages may not be awarded if the claimant does not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant against whom punitive damages are sought acted with actual malice, gross negligence which evidences a willful, wanton[,] or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or committed actual fraud.” Miss. Code. Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(a) (Supp. 2013). In determining the propriety of punitive damages, a chancellor “decides whether, under the totality of the circumstances and viewing the defendant’s conduct in the aggregate, a reasonable, hypothetical trier of fact could find either malice or gross neglect/reckless disregard.” Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Murphree, 653 So. 2d 857, 863 (Miss. 1994) (citations omitted).
* * *
¶19. We now turn to a review of the statutory law and caselaw applicable to punitive damages. In discussing whether an award of punitive damages is proper, Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-1-65(1)(b)-(c) (Supp. 2013) provides:
In any action in which the claimant seeks an award of punitive damages, the trier of fact shall first determine whether compensatory damages are to be awarded and in what amount, before addressing any issues related to punitive damages.
If, but only if, an award of compensatory damages has been made against a party, the court shall promptly commence an evidentiary hearing to determine whether punitive damages may be considered by the same trier of fact.
¶20. The Mississippi Supreme Court has also provided the following guidance:
Mississippi law does not favor punitive damages; they are considered an extraordinary remedy and are allowed with caution and within narrow limits. Punitive damages should be awarded in addition to actual or compensatory damages where the violation of a right or the actual damages sustained, import insult, fraud, or oppression and not merely injuries, but injuries inflicted in the spirit of wanton disregard for the rights of others. In other words, there must be some element of aggression or some coloring of insult, malice[,] or gross negligence, evincing ruthless disregard for the rights of others, so as to take the case out of the ordinary rule.
. . . This Court has held that punitive damages are recoverable in breach of contract cases where the breach results from an intentional wrong and when there has been a showing of malice or gross/reckless disregard for the rights of others. Punitive damages are only appropriate in the most egregious cases so as to discourage similar conduct and should only be awarded in cases where the actions are extreme.
Warren v. Derivaux, 996 So. 2d 729, 738 (¶¶27-28) (Miss. 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
¶21. As our precedent reflects, some underlying basis, such as actual malice or fraud, must exist for an award of punitive damages before a chancellor will hold a second hearing on the issue of such damages. See Miss. Code. Ann. § 11-1-65(1) (Supp. 2013). In the present case, the chancellor found no merit to Bar-Til’s claim that Superior’s conduct justified an award of punitive damages. As reflected in his order and final judgment, the chancellor found that Bar-Til failed to provide the requisite evidentiary basis to support an award of punitive damages.
That’s a pretty nifty survey of the law of punitive damages, and it illustrates how exceptional and infrequent such awards are.
The COA swept aside Bar-Til’s claim about the failure to hold a separate hearing based on the chancellor’s conclusion that punitive damages were not warranted.
When Should a Temporary Administrator be Appointed?
September 17, 2014 § 2 Comments
MCA 91-7-53 allows the court in a will contest, on filing of a petition by an interested person, to appoint a temporary administrator if necessary to protect the rights of the parties.
In the case of Parker v. Benoist, decided August 28, 2014, the MSSC was confronted with the question whether the chancellor should have appointed a temporary administrator in a will contest. We talked about this case previously in connection with in terrorem clauses.
Bronwyn Parker filed a contest in connection with the will of her father, B.D. Benoist. She also filed a motion to remove her brother, William, from his position as executor, claiming that he had appropriated most of B.D.’s assets for himself through undue influence before B.D.’s death, and that he had unduly influenced his father in the making of the will being contested. She contended that a previous will, executed in 1998, was her father’s true, valid will. Because William was defending the will from which he benefited, and which Bronwyn argued should be set aside, William should be removed as fiduciary.
The chancellor overruled Bronwyn’s motion, finding that there were factual issues which were “strongly disputed between the parties,” and that “[t]here [wa]s no uncontested evidence for the Court to remove William D. Benoist as the Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Billy Dean ‘B.D.’ Benoist.”
Bronwyn appealed, charging that it was error for the trial judge to refuse to remove William.
The MSSC affirmed on the point. Justice Kitchens wrote for the court:
¶26. “[W]henever a last will and testament shall be contested, the chancery court or chancellor in vacation, on petition of any interested person, may appoint a temporary administrator if it shall appear necessary for the protection of the rights of the parties. . . .” Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-53 (Rev. 2013). Chancellors have wide discretion in appointing a new executor in a will contest, and this Court “should not reverse his action unless there is clear evidence of abuse of that discretion.” Sandifer v. Sandifer, 237 Miss. 464, 469, 115 So.2d 46, 48 (1959). On appeal, Bronwyn essentially reiterates the facts that she believes necessitated a finding by the chancellor that a new executor should be appointed–substantial gifts from B.D. to William before B.D.’s death and William’s mismanagement and depletion of estate assets after B.D.’s death. She argues that, because the jury found that William was in a confidential relationship with B.D., there was a presumption of undue influence.
¶27. We find that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in denying Bronwyn’s petition to remove William as executor. The chancellor considered all of the arguments Bronwyn has made on appeal and determined that the circumstances did not warrant the appointment of a new executor. We cannot say the chancellor was manifestly wrong or that he abused his discretion. We are slightly troubled, however, by the wording of the chancellor’s order denying Bronwyn’s petition. The chancellor stated that there was no “uncontested evidence” that would justify removing William as the executor. It is not required that there be uncontested evidence to justify the removal of an executor. All that is required is that the chancellor determine, in his or her discretion, that it is necessary to remove the current executor to protect the rights of the parties to the will contest. See Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-53 (Rev. 2013). “Nowhere does the statute say that before he may appoint a temporary administrator he must find that the executor named in the will is disqualified or has been guilty of misconduct in office.” Sandifer, 115 So. 2d at 47-48. We clarify that chancellors enjoy wide discretion in granting or denying requests to remove an executor, and that a party is not required to present “uncontested evidence” to succeed in such a petition. Bronwyn’s claim of error on this issue, however, is without merit.
To put it in simpler terms: even though the chancellor followed the wrong road map, he arrived at the right destination, so no reversal.
What jumps out from this case is that it is not enough for the executor and the contestant to be pitted against one another in the litigation. Nor is it enough that the executor have a stake in the outcome. You have to convince the chancellor that that removal is necessary to protect the interests of the parties to the litigation. Even then, it is within the chancellor’s discretion, and to reverse his decision on appeal, you must convince the appellate court that he was manifestly wrong or abused his discretion.
MRCP 41(b) in Operation
September 16, 2014 § Leave a comment
The COA’s September 9, 2014, decision in In the Matter of Will of Bowling: Hicks v. Bowling, addresses a dismissal by the trial court of a will contestant’s complaint after she had rested in a bench trial.
The dismissal was per MRCP 41(b), which states, in pertinent part:
… After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court may then render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence …
The defendant, Mark Bowling, moved to dismiss at the conclusion of Paula Hicks’s case in chief, and the chancellor granted the motion. Paula appealed.
Judge Maxwell set out the applicable law:
¶18. In contrast to a motion for a directed verdict under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), which applies to jury trials and requires the trial judge to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss differs somewhat. It applies to cases tried by a judge sitting without a jury and requires the judge to view the evidence fairly. Gulfport-Biloxi Reg’l Airport Auth. v. Montclair Travel Agency, Inc., 937 So. 2d 1000, 1004 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (contrasting Rule 41(b) with Rule 50(a)). When considering a Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss, the judge must deny the motion to dismiss “only if the judge would be obliged to find for the plaintiff if the plaintiff’s evidence were all the evidence offered in the case.” Id. at 1004-05 (¶13) (quoting Stewart v. Merchs. Nat’l Bank, 700 So. 2d 255, 259 (Miss. 1997)).
The standard, then, is for the court to consider the plaintiff’s evidence fairly, and to overrule the motion only if the judge would be compelled to rule in the plaintiff’s favor if her case in chief were all the evidence in the record. The court is not obliged to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, as in jury trials, but only fairly.
The COA went on to find that the chancellor had considered Paula’s evidence fairly, and agreed with the chancellor’s analysis of why she had not met her burden of proof in the case.
The distinction between viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and viewing it fairly can be major. In the former, the judge must tilt the perspective, so to speak, in the plaintiff’s favor. In the latter, the view is more even-handed. Knowing the distinction and being able to apply it to the facts in your case could mean the difference between winning and losing your case on a R41(b) motion. Keep in mind, though, that nothing can save your case if you have not met your burden of proof. That means using those checklists and proving every applicable factor.
The View from the Tip of the Iceberg
August 19, 2014 § 2 Comments
This is for the young lawyers out there.
Imagine yourself perched at the pinnacle of what appears to you to be a mountain in the middle of the ocean. You examine your environs as closely as you can, and gather that you are on a peak of ice, surrounded by miles of water. The mountain is relatively featureless, save for a few large stones here and there. The slopes descend into the sea and nothing beneath the surface of the water is visible. Everything you know about your location is what you can see. You conclude that you are on an iceberg, and you guess that there is much more to it that is hidden from you below the waterline, but you have no actual knowledge of the size or dimensions of what lies below.
That view from the tip of the iceberg is what the judge has at the conclusion of a trial in chancery.
The judge knows that there is so much more that is not in the record, but all the judge may go on is what has been revealed. The scope of the judge’s knowledge of the case is limited by the rules of evidence, the MRCP, the pleadings, the discovery, the skill of the lawyers, and the ability of the witnesses to articulate. All of those things are filters through which the facts are passed and reduced to the concentrated mass that the judge must consider in making a ruling. And the judge must make his or her ruling based only on the competent proof in the record.
Remember that you and opposing counsel know ten times or more about your case than the judge will ever know. And never forget that your client and the party opposite know ten times more about the case than they will ever share with the attorneys.
If you don’t put something into the record, the judge not only will not know about it, she can not even consider it. And I am talking about the record as in via evidence. Pleadings are not evidence. Just because you alleged a fact in a pleading does not mean that it is proven so that the judge can consider it.
As you plan out your case for trial, take a minute and imagine that view from the iceberg. Ask yourself what it is you see if you identify all of the competent evidence that you get into the record. Is it enough? Does it include all the judge needs to know? Is there enough evidence to support every factor you need to prove in order to prevail? Have you made a thorough enough record to support your argument on appeal?
The Calculating Judge
August 5, 2014 § 10 Comments
I don’t think I’m overstating when I say that the sum of case law requires chancellors to be at times mindreaders, engineers, valuation experts, tax experts, soothsayers, sages, interpreters, accountants, astrologers, psychologists, geneticists, mathematicians, theologians, and, always, legal scholars. I am sure, with a little research, I could add some more roles that our jurisprudence has conferred on chancery judges.
As for the role of mathematician, it has long been the law in Mississippi that the judge may do calculations to arrive at her conclusions. That almost goes without saying, since many cases we hear involve piles of bank statements, appraisals, balance sheets, general ledgers, financial statements, tax returns, and all kinds of other data that require number-crunching.
But how far does that computational authority extend?
That was the question posed in the COA case of Pruitt v. Pruitt, decided July 29, 2014. In Pruitt, the chancellor had less than ideal proof of the value of the parties’ respective PERS accounts in an equitable distribution/alimony case. He requested further proof to support his decision, but the parties told him, in essence, that such proof was unavailable. In other words, “Judge, you’re on your own.”
Faced with what he apparently considered a dearth of proof, the chancellor found information in a PERS handbook and website that he used to calculate the value of the husband’s PERS account. Based on the figures he derived from his computations, the judge ordered Mr. Pruitt to pay Mrs. Pruitt alimony (or division of PERS benefits; it’s not clear to me which), and he awarded her a judgment for more than $90,000, which was his calculation of the difference in their estates.
Mr. Pruitt appealed. Judge Roberts, for the COA, addressed his issues:
¶9. Ira’s issue on appeal stems from the fact that after the parties went to trial, the chancellor found information from a PERS handbook and the PERS website and determined a value for Ira’s PERS retirement account. Ira argues that the chancellor erred by considering evidence outside the record. We agree.
¶10. In Dunaway v. Dunaway, 749 So. 2d 1112, 1121 (¶28) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999), a chancellor was faced with proof of valuation that was “something less than ideal.” Consequently, the chancellor “made valuation judgments” that had at least some evidentiary support in the record. Id. This Court stated that “[t]o the extent that the evidence on which the chancellor based his opinion was less informative than it could have been, we lay that at the feet of the litigants and not the chancellor.” Id. Accordingly, this Court found that the chancellor had not abused his discretion. Id.
¶11. Although a chancellor may value assets based on evidence that is based on something less than ideal, the chancellor’s valuation must be based on at least some evidentiary support in the record. In other words, we must draw a distinction between less-than-ideal evidence presented by parties to the litigation, and information outside of the record that neither party presented. Despite the chancellor’s clear and thorough attempt to resolve the issue in an equitable manner, under the precise circumstances of this case, we must find that it was an abuse of discretion to consider evidence that was outside the record. It follows that we remand this case for further proceedings.
Having said that, the COA’s remand instructions help illuminate the scope and approach that applies:
¶12. On remand, the chancellor may exercise his considerable discretion when calculating the manner in which Ira’s PERS retirement benefits should impact the equitable distribution of Ira’s and Lena’s marital assets and liabilities. We are aware of no restriction on the chancellor’s right to calculate Ira’s income based on the monthly payments he receives from his PERS annuity – at least to the extent that such income impacts Ira’s ability to pay Lena alimony. But we caution the chancellor to remain mindful that Ira cannot exercise any option to pay Lena a lump-sum figure from his PERS retirement account. Essentially, a lump-sum payment from Ira’s PERS account would operate as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). A QDRO is permissible in the context of a retirement account governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). See Parker v. Parker, 641 So. 2d 1133, 1137 (Miss. 1994). But ERISA does not apply to retirement plans that are “established and maintained for its employees by . . . the government of any State . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(2) (2012). PERS was established “for the purpose of providing retirement allowances and other benefits . . . for officers and employees in the state service and their beneficiaries.” Miss. Code Ann. § 25-11-101 (Rev. 2010). Furthermore, accrued PERS benefits are “exempt from levy and sale, garnishment, attachment or any other process whatsoever, and shall be unassignable except as specifically otherwise provided in this article . . . .” Miss. Code Ann. § 25-11-129(1) (Rev. 2010). Therefore, a lump-sum payment from an accrued PERS retirement account is not permissible by way of a QDRO. We recognize that the chancellor’s order did not specifically attempt to award Lena any figure by way of a QDRO – at least not in name. When the chancellor denied Ira’s motion for reconsideration, he noted Ira’s claim that the lump-sum judgment was a “masked” QDRO “under another name.” The chancellor found no merit to Ira’s claim, but he did not discuss his reasoning. Notwithstanding the name used to describe the lump-sum judgment, the mechanics involved operate no differently than a QDRO. Most importantly, it is legally impossible for Ira to transfer a lump-sum figure from his PERS account. A legally impossible option is not an option at all.
That last paragraph is something you should clip and paste into your notebook of useful chancery information.
Keep in mind that it’s up to the lawyers, and not the judges, to marshal and get into evidence the proof that will support their client’s case. It’s frustrating in the extreme for a judge to have an incomplete and inadequate record which the chancellor is required to analyze applying two, three, four, or more sets of appellate-court-mandated factors.
One point about this case has me scratching my head, though. MRE 201 specifically states that “[a] court may look to any source it deems helpful and appropriate, including official public documents, records and publications …” Unless I am missing sosmething, I would guess that a PERS handbook and the agency’s website would come within that definition. I wonder whether the COA took into account or even considered the broad scope of judicial notice that the MSSC has allowed judges. I posted about the rather breathtaking scope of it here. Three points from that post:
- In Witherspoon v. State ex rel. West, 138 Miss. 310, 320, 103 So. 134, 136-37 (1925), the court held that it was within the judge’s diecretion to ” … resort to … government publications, dictionaries, encyclopedias, geographies, or other books, periodicals and public addresses. (citing, inter alia, Puckett v. State, 71 Miss. 192, 195, 14 So. 452, 453 (1893)). Nothing in Rule 201 casts doubt on Witherspoon.”
- In Enroth v. Mem’l Hosp. at Gulfport, 566 So. 2d 202, 205 (Miss. 1990), the chancellor’s decison was upheld, notwithstanding that he took judicial notice, without advising the parties in advance, of: (1) numerous newspaper articles discussing the nature, operation and funding of Memorial Hospital, (2) conversations with physicians, (3) conversations with the Chancery Judge’s own niece who was an employee at the hospital, (4) conversations with a lawyer not involved with this particular case but who was familiar with the matter, and (5) the fact that, before becoming Chancery Judge and in his prior capacity as a lawyer, he had been involved in a lawsuit regarding the hospital in which its legal status had been an issue.
- In neither of these cases, nor in the more contemporary case cited in my previous post, to my knowledge, did the judges give advance notice of the matters of which they took judicial notice in their rulings.
Why was it error for the chancellor in Pruitt to consult with official publications in making his calculations, but it was not error in the cases cited above for the judges to range far beyone the record in making their findings?
Was it the computation in Pruitt that was the offending act, or was it going outside the record? I’ll leave it to you to calculate.
How Much to Pay Your Witnesses
July 15, 2014 § 9 Comments
Of course you can’t pay witnesses for their testimony (except experts, sortof), but you are required by MRCP 45(c)(1) to pay “to a non-party witness at the time of service [of a subpoena] the fee for one day’s attendance plus mileage allowed by law.” That payment may be waived by court order for indigence, and is not required of the State of Mississippi.
The witness fee is set out in MCA 25-7-47, which has provided that the witness is to be paid $1.50 per day and five cents per mile for travel to and from the courthouse “by the nearest route,” plus tolls and ferriage.
The usual practice in this district up to now for those who have not ignored the requirement is to issue the subpoena and tender a check for some nominal sum, like $2.00, to local witnesses.
The cost of witnesses, however, has gone up significantly, effective July 1, 2014. SB 2676, amends MCA 25-7-47, as follows:
Witnesses in the county, circuit * * *, chancery and justice courts shall receive * * * the same pay per day as is set by the board of supervisors under Section 25-7-61 for service as a juror plus mileage as authorized under Section 25-3-41 for each mile going to and returning from the courthouse to their homes by the nearest route, and such tolls and ferriages as they may actually be obliged to pay; but * * * a charge shall not be made for mileage except that traveled in this state. * * * Witnesses in all other cases shall receive the same compensation as they receive before the circuit court. It shall not be necessary to issue subpoenas for police officers as witnesses in city cases of cities having a population of more than ten thousand (10,000) according to the federal census of 1930; and * * * officers, when used as witnesses in * * * cases, are not to be allowed witness fees. A law enforcement officer who has retired or otherwise ceased employment as a law enforcement officer but who is required to testify in any case based on matters that arose during the course of the officer’s employment shall be entitled to the same compensation and expenses from the former employing law enforcement agency as an officer on active duty under the same circumstances.
So let’s try to figure this out:
- First, you have to look at MCA 25-7-61 to determine what “pay per day as is set by the board of supervisors … for service as a juror …” To arrive at that figure, you’ll have to consult with your board of supervisors, because the statute allows them to set the fee between $25 and $40 per day.
- Second, you will have to read and decipher what is the allowable mileage reimbursement under MCA 25-3-41. Good luck with that. If you conclude as I do that the applicable rate under MCA 25-7-41 is the county reimbursement rate, then MCA 25-3-41(2) applies, and it allows a mere twenty cents per mile unless the board of supervisors has adopted the mileage reimbursement rate allowable for state employees.
Bottom line is that your per diem cost to obtain a witness’s attendance has gone up from $1.50 to somewhere around $25 – $40 per day of attendance. That does not include mileage, which must be computed in addition to the per diem. I doubt that there are any boards of supervisors clinging to the antiquated twenty-cents mileage rate. The state mileage reimbursement rate now is $.565 per mile. If your supervisors have adopted the prevailing state rate, then you are looking at paying your witnesses more than 10 1/2 times more than the current five cents per mile statutory rate.
Hypothetically, then, if your non-party witness has to travel 17 miles to court, and your board of supervisors has adopted $40 a day for jury pay and mileage at the state rate, and there are no ferries or tolls to pay, then you now have to tender that witness $59.21 ($40 per diem, plus 34 mi. x $.565) each day for attendance. The cost before the amendment would have been a mere $3.20 ($1.50 per diem, plus 34 mi. x $.05).
For lawyers who are going to observe the requirement of R45, this should have a dampening effect on the vexatious practice of issuing subpoenas for 30 witnesses for trial and calling only four. It should also discourage those lawyers who like to subpoena a witness aligned with the other side, and then to keep that witness waiting in the hall two, three or four days, only calling him or her for a few brief questions at the end of the trial. Both unprofessional practices will now be more expensive than one could reasonably justify to a paying client.
As I said, these new rates are in effect now, and have been since July 1, 2014.
NOTE: In East v. East, 775 So. 2d 741, 747 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000), the COA ruled that a witness who had not been tendered payment per R45 had not been properly served. Who gets to raise the issue? In Roberts, it was the witness himself who brought up the matter via ex parte communication with the judge, which the COA did not find improper. No doubt the affected witness may always raise the non-payment issue, but may a party? Stay tuned.
Thanks to Anderson for the cite to Roberts in a comment to this post.
Evidence of Pre-Divorce Conduct in a Modification
July 3, 2014 § 1 Comment
The chancellor granted Marquis Stevenson’s petition for modification of custody, taking the child from his ex-wife Tanisha Martin. Tanisha appealed. One assignment of error was the chancellor’s exclusion of evidence of Marquis’s past domestic violence.
The COA, in Martin v. Stevenson, decided February 11, 2014, found no error. Judge Carlton, for the majority, said this:
¶32. We review a trial judge’s decision of whether to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Rushing v. Rushing, 724 So. 2d 911, 914 (¶11) (Miss. 1998) (citations omitted). In Lackey v. Fuller, 755 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (¶¶6-7) (Miss. 2000), the parties obtained an irreconcilable-differences divorce, and the wife later asked for modification of the final judgment. At the hearing, the chancellor allowed into evidence testimony regarding the wife’s predivorce conduct. Id. at 1086 (¶11). In its discussion of
res judicata as it applies to divorce proceedings and child-custody issues, the Mississippi Supreme Court stated:
We begin with the principles of res judicata[,] which command that a final judgment preclude[s] thereafter all claims that were or reasonably may have been brought in the original action. The familiar rule that a judgment for alimony, custody[,] or support may be modified only upon a showing of a post-judgment material change of circumstances is a recognition of the force of res judicata in divorce actions.
Id. at (¶13) (citations omitted). The supreme court concluded that the wife’s predivorce conduct was res judicata and that the only evidence the chancellor should have admitted was evidence pertaining to post-judgment conduct. Id. at 1087 (¶18).
¶33. In the present case, the record shows that at the September 28, 2011 hearing, Tanisha’s attorney tried to question Marquis about charges that arose prior to the divorce proceeding. Upon the objection of Marquis’s attorney, the chancellor asked Tanisha’s attorney whether there had been any continuation of Marquis’s conduct since the divorce decree and stated: “[U]nless you can tie some current conduct to that past conduct, I’m going to have to sustain the objection.” Because Tanisha’s attorney could not provide any evidence
of domestic violence by Marquis since the divorce, the chancellor found the evidence not relevant and sustained the objection. The issue arose again during Tanisha’s testimony, and the chancellor again explained that he would sustain the objection as to any matters that occurred prior to the divorce decree but would allow testimony regarding any actions since that time.
¶34. Based on the record and applicable law, we find no abuse of discretion in the s past acts of domestic violence. At the hearing for modification of custody, Tanisha was only able to offer proof of acts that divorce. Tanisha failed to offer any evidence of current conduct occurring since the divorce. Because Tanisha failed to properly raise this claim for consideration in the original divorce decree, she is barred from raising the issue now. This assignment of error therefore lacks merit.
This is a fairly common situation in modification cases, and this case is a helpful guide to how the chancellor should address it.
This case is also an interesting wrinkle on application of the statutory principle that a history of domestic violence may be a basis to deny custody. A previous post on that subject is here.
The Limits of Confidentiality
May 13, 2014 § 2 Comments
When most of us in the legal profession think of client confidentiality, we tend to think in absolute terms. That is, if it involves a communication between lawyer and client, or client documents or other forms of client secrets, it can not be disclosed.
The rule is not absolute, however. Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.6 provides six exceptions by which the lawyer may reveal otherwise confidential information of a client. RPC 3.3 and 4.1 complement 1.6.
MRE 502 is the lawyer-client privilege rule. It states that a lawyer may invoke the privilege on behalf of a client in order to keep attorney-client communications confidential. Subsection (d) sets out five exceptions in which the privilege may not be invoked: (1) if the lawyer acted to aid a client in committing a crime or fraud; (2) claimants through the same deceased client; (3) if the communication is relevant to a claim of breach of duty by a lawyer to a client; (4) if the communication pertains to an attested document to which the lawyer is the attesting witness; and (5) communications relevant to interests of joint clients in certain situations.
That third exception reads that there is no privilege under MRE 502:
… As to a communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or intestate succession or by inter vivos transaction.
Exception 3 was the subject of an interlocutory order entered by the MSSC May 8, 2014, in the case of Flechas v. Pitts. The matter was before the court on “Motion for Immediate, Extraordinary Relief, and Petition for Reconsideration and/or Rehearing of Previous Ruling Based on Newly Discovered Evidence and Related Legal Issues filed by Petitioner; the Motion to Dismiss and to Strike the Motion for Immediate, Extraordinary Relief, and Petition for Reconsideration and/or Rehearing of Previous Ruling Based on Newly Discovered Evidence and Related Legal Issues, or to Partially Strike filed by Respondent; Respondent’s Rule 48A(d) Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure Motion for Access to Sealed Document, and all responses and rebuttals.”
The issue arose in the course of litigation involving a will contest between Alyce Pitts and Todd Pitts, who claimed to be beneficiaries of the decedent, Troy Pitts, under competing wills. Attorney Flechas had represented Troy Pitts in various matters. He also represented Todd in the will contest. Flechas was served by Alyce with a subpoena duces tecum for “all files, records, electronic communications, written or any documents . . . including . . . all divorce files, personal injury defense files, estate files, Will or trust files, [and] deed preparation files.”
Flechas responded to the subpoena with a motion to withdraw, since the subpoena placed him in a testimonial role as to the contested matter at issue. He also objected to the subpoena on grounds of attorney-client privilege. The chancellor overruled both the motion and the objection based on MRE 503(d), ordering the attorney to produce all of the requested information. Flechas appealed.
The MSSC reversed the chancellor’s ruling, directing that he conduct an in camera inspection of every document produced in order to determine whether it is relevant to the issues in the will contest, and that he limit disclosure to those relevant documents. The MSSC’s rationale, involving analysis of MRE 502, MRCP 26, and MRCP 45, and applicable case law, is worth your time to read.
Alyce noted for the first time in her response to Flechas’s motion that she had filed pleadings with the trial court to disqualify the attorney, and asking that he be directed to disgorge funds allegedly held fraudulently. The chancellor defended his actions, in part, based on the fraudulent acts provision of MRE 502(d)(1). The Supreme Court took note, but did not alter its position.
In an age where lawyers are increasingly finding themselves in the cross-hairs of litigation involving themselves or others, this order is important authority for the proposition that you may be called upon to disclose your client’s information entrusted to you, along with your work product, and you had better be ready to help the court understand the limitations involved.
The Cost of Side Income
April 21, 2014 § 2 Comments
It often happens that one of the parties in a divorce has side income. By “side income” I am referring to extra income, usually in cash, received for services separate and apart from one’s primary employment.
Some examples could include cash that a party: receives for doing weekend painting; is paid as a part-time, fill-in clerk at a country store; earns for child care or sitting; takes in for yard work. The list is endless.
There is no question that when the proof shows that there is that additional income, it should be taken into consideration in calculating alimony or child support. The hard part is how exactly is the court supposed to quantify it? It’s the hard part because the proof usually ranges on from almost entirely lacking to at best vague and inconclusive. After all, it’s cash with no evidence trail.
That was the problem facing the chancellor in Burnham v. Burnham, decided April 8, 2014, by the COA.
The chancellor found that Matthew Burnham was earning some side income from farming, which was in addition to adjusted gross income from his primary employment at Jones County Community College in the count of $2,618.04. The judge ordered child support in the amount of $600 a month, which he explained was guideline support for the two children, plus an additional sum to account for the farming income.
Matthew appealed, complaining that the support, by guideline, should have been no more than $523.61, a difference of $76.39 a month.
Judge James, for the COA, found the chancellor in error:
¶18. The record indicates that Matthew’s adjusted gross income from Jones County Junior College is $2,618.04 per month. The trial court found that Matthew receives additional income from farming operations. However, there is no documentation that provides for the amount per month he receives from farming. It is also unclear whether Matthew still receives this supplemental income from farming.
¶19. Matthew argues that the appropriate amount for his child-support obligation for the two minor children is $523.61; which is twenty percent of his net income. The trial court ordered Matthew to pay $600 per month. The trial court based the child-support award on the net income Matthew receives from Jones County Junior College and cash received from the farming operation. However, there is nothing in the record to establish the amount of income received from the farming operation. The trial court imputed an undetermined amount of income to Matthew.
¶20. Matthew argues that a deviation from the child-support guidelines requires a written finding on the record explaining the need for such deviation. Miss. Code Ann. § 3-19-101 (Supp. 2013). The criteria for finding an appropriate deviation are as follows:
(a) Extraordinary medical, psychological, educational or dental expenses.
(b) Independent income of the child.
(c) The payment of both child support and spousal support to the obligee.
(d) Seasonal variations in one or both parents’ incomes or expenses.
(e) The age of the child, taking into account the greater needs of older children.
(f) Special needs that have traditionally been met within the family budget even though the fulfilling of those needs will cause the support to exceed the proposed guidelines.
(g) The particular shared parental arrangement, such as where the noncustodial parent spends a great deal of time with the children thereby reducing the financial expenditures incurred by the custodial parent, or the refusal of the noncustodial parent to become involved in the activities of the child, or giving due consideration to the custodial parent’s homemaking services.
(h) Total available assets of the obligee, obligor and the child.
(i) Payment by the obligee of child care expenses in order that the obligee may seek or retain employment, or because of the disability of the obligee.
(j) Any other adjustment which is needed to achieve an equitable result which may include, but not be limited to, a reasonable and necessary existing expense or debt.
Miss. Code Ann. § 43-19-103 (Supp. 2013).
¶21. “The child support award guidelines are ‘ rebuttable presumption in all judicial or administrative proceedings regarding the awarding or modifying of child support awards in this state.’” Grove v. Agnew, 14 So. 3d 790, 793 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Miss. Code Ann. § 43-19-103 (Rev. 2004)). Thus, “[i]n the absence of specific findings of fact to support a deviation from the child support guidelines, the chancellor’s award is not entitled to the presumption of correctness under the statute.” Osborn v. Osborn, 724 So. 2d 1121, 1125 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998).
¶22. After careful review of the record, we find no specific finding of fact to support deviation. Instead there is merely an order for Matthew to pay a seemingly arbitrary amount of $600. The ordered amount of support is almost twenty-three percent of his net income. There is no mention of any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a departure from the child-support guidelines. Although the children attend private school, the maternal grandparents agreed to pay the tuition. Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in deviating from the child-support guidelines without specific on-the-record findings.
I can’t quibble with the conclusion here that specific, on-the-record findings are necessary to support a deviation from the guidelines. Under this case, it appears that those findings would necessarily include not only why and how one or more deviation factors applies, but also what are the specific findings of the court as to how the additional sum is calculated.
I do have a minor quibble with the bold language above. If there is proof in the record that Matthew receives some farming income, even if it is unclear, doesn’t the chancellor’s finding that it exists resolve that issue? It is the judge’s job to make that call based on what he finds to be the credible evidence.
When you have a case such as this where the chancellor has not fleshed out his findings, file a R59 motion and ask the judge to support his findings in the record. Post-trial motions were filed in this case, but it is not clear whether that particular request was made.
Also, if you represent the party trying to benefit from the side income, always make sure you put some proof in the record to quantify it. Ask questions on cross examination to get a number or a range. Look at tax returns and get them into the record; sometimes people report at least part of side income to avoid IRS problems. Get youor client to testify to her experience (e.g., “When we lived together he would give me hundred dollar bills a couple of times a month for groceries, and he would peel them off of a thick wad of hundreds that he carried around.”)
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 