No Directed Verdict in Chancery Unless it is a Jury Trial
March 26, 2018 § 1 Comment
Sheila Jones George filed a contempt action against her ex, Mike Jones, charging that he had failed to comply with their divorce judgment. After Sheila rested, Mike’s attorney addressed the court: “Your honor, we would make a motion for a directed verdict, this case be dismissed as not meeting the burden of proof of contempt.” The chancellor did dismiss Sheila’s contempt claim, and she appealed.
In the case of George v. Jones, decided March 6, 2018, the COA reversed and remanded. Judge Griffis explained the difference between a motion for an involuntary dismissal and a motion for a directed verdict, and how invoking the wrong procedure produces error:
¶15. … [W]e note that when Sheila rested her case-in-chief, Mike’s attorney made a motion for “directed verdict.” In a bench trial, the proper motion to be made at this time is a motion for involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 41(b) is the authority for an involuntary dismissal, and it provides:
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 the 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.
Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) is the authority for a directed verdict; it is properly made at a jury trial.
¶16. In Crowell v. Butts, 153 So. 3d 684, 687 (¶6) (Miss. 2014), the supreme court ruled:
A motion for directed verdict granted by the court, sitting without a jury, is procedurally a dismissal on the merits under [Rule] 41(b). This Court reviews a grant or denial of a Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss under the substantial evidence/manifest error standard. In considering a motion to dismiss, the trial judge should consider the evidence fairly, as distinguished from in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, and should dismiss the case if it would find for the movant. The court must deny a 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. (Internal citations and quotation marks omitted). [Emphasis in this paragraph added]
When you move to dismiss per R41(b), the judge must “consider the evidence fairly” and dismiss if it would rule for the party moving to dismiss based on the proof presented to that point, even without hearing the other side’s proof.
In a jury trial, the court has to consider the evidence “in the light most favorable to the nonmovant” and dismiss if it would find for the movant.
The standard for the court to apply in ruling on either motion is different in a bench trial than it is in a jury trial. Thus, invoking the wrong procedure can lead the judge to apply the wrong standard, and thus lead to error.
If you are confused over the difference, just remember that judges ruling from the bench render judgments; juries render verdicts. A chancellor cannot direct a verdict unless there is a jury; a chancellor can, in a bench trial, dismiss a party’s pleading and render judgment in favor of the other party.
When It’s Too late to Change Beneficiaries
March 14, 2018 § Leave a comment
Annie Patterson owned an Alfa life insurance policy in the amount of $50,000 on the life of her nephew and ward, Christopher Nance. Annie was also the beneficiary. She named Christopher’s mother, Angela Nance, as contingent beneficiary. The policy included a provision that, “upon death of the owner, ownership and control of the policy … shall pass to the estate of the deceased owner.”
Annie died in April, 2013, and her father, C.D. Pulliam, attempted to make himself owner and beneficiary, along with his siblings. They submitted an affidavit to Alfa claiming to be Annie’s sole heirs. One of C.D.’s siblings also completed a “Change of Ownership” form that purported to make C.D. owner and primary beneficiary of the policy. C.D. claimed that Alfa produced the form and directed that it be signed. He also claimed that he paid all premiums on the policy after Annie’s death.
No estate was ever opened for Annie.
After Christopher died in November, 2014, Alfa issued a letter to Annie stating that her recent policy change request had been “closed as incomplete” due to irregularities in the form submitted.
Alfa interpled the policy proceeds per MRCP 22 in January, 2015, naming C.D. and his siblings as defendants, since they claimed to be beneficiaries. C.D. filed a counterclaim against Alfa. The chancellor ruled that Alfa had properly interpled the funds and dismissed C.D.’s counterclaim as moot. The chancellor also ruled that C.D. had no legal right or authority to change ownership or beneficiaries of the policy. C.D. appealed.
In Pulliam v. Alfa Ins. Co. and Nance, handed down January 30, 2018, the COA affirmed on the issue of C.D.’s power and authority to change ownership and beneficiaries. Judge Wilson wrote for a unanimous court:
¶23. “Generally, a policy of life insurance is a stand-alone contract whose purpose is to provide a sum of money to the named beneficiary upon the death of the listed insured.” Barber v. Balboa Life Ins., 747 So. 2d 863, 866 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). The policy owner may select any individual as the policy’s beneficiary. Van Zandt v. Morris, 196 Miss. 374, 380, 17 So. 2d 435, 436 (1944). However, “[t]he policy owner’s rights largely end at the death of the insured. The policy beneficiary then has a right to the proceeds, which until death is only an expectancy. At the insured’s death the right to change the beneficiary no longer exists; the rights of the beneficiary have vested.” Evans v. Moore, 853 So. 2d 850, 855 (¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (citations omitted).
¶24. As discussed above, the policy was issued to Annie as the owner and primary beneficiary, with Angela designated as the contingent beneficiary. The policy provides that “upon the death of the owner, ownership and control of the policy . . . shall pass to the estate of the deceased owner.” “The language and provisions of insurance policies are viewed as contracts and are subject to the same rules of interpretation as other contracts.” Hayne v. The Doctors Co., 145 So. 3d 1175, 1180 (¶12) (Miss. 2014). “Because insurance policies are creatures of contract, if the language is clear and unambiguous, then the language of the policy must be interpreted as written.” Id. Therefore, when Annie died ownership and control of the policy passed to her estate.
¶25. The chancellor concluded, and we agree, that C.D. and Otis had no authority to change the ownership of the policy or designate new beneficiaries. No estate was ever opened for Annie, nor was there ever any determination of her heirs. The only purported authority for C.D.’s and Otis’s action is an affidavit they provided to Alfa identifying themselves (and Willie Mae) as Annie’s heirs. This was insufficient to give them authority to change the ownership of a policy that, by its clear and unambiguous terms, was the property of Annie’s estate. Cf. Long v. McKinney, 897 So. 2d 160, 174 (¶60) (Miss. 2004) (holding that an “estate must, of course, be opened and administered through the chancery court” before claims may be pursued on its behalf); Delta Health Group Inc. v. Estate of Pope ex rel. Payne, 995 So. 2d 123, 125-26 (¶12) (Miss. 2008) (holding that when “no estate had been opened,” a party could not act as “the administrator of a non-existent estate”).
¶26. While there does not appear to be a Mississippi case addressing this precise issue, courts in other states have reached the logical conclusion that parties such as C.D. and Otis lack authority to make changes to the ownership or beneficiaries of a life insurance policy owned by a deceased relative. In Prudential Insurance Co. v. Stephens, 498 F. Supp. 155, 157 (E.D. Va. 1980), the court held that when the policy owner died,
title to the policy passed to her administrator whenever he may qualify as such, not to her husband . . . in his capacity as the sole heir of her estate. Although her husband was preferred by statute for appointment as administrator of her estate, he had to apply to qualify as administrator. Because he never qualified, title to the policy never passed to him, and any act of dominion he exercised over the policy, other than those acts specifically permitted by statute, had no legal effect. A change of the beneficiary of a life insurance policy does not fall within the . . . narrow categories of permitted acts.
Id. at 157. [Fn 1] (Emphasis supplied) (internal citation omitted).
[Fn 1] Like Virginia, Mississippi has certain statutes that permit a decedent’s heirs at law to take possession of certain categories of the decedent’s assets without opening and administering an estate. See, e.g., Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-322 (Rev. 2013); see generally Robert A. Weems, Wills and Administration of Estates in Mississippi § 2.52 (3d ed. 2003). It is not apparent that any of these statutes would apply to the facts of this case or that C.D. complied with the necessary statutory requirements. Nor has C.D. argued that any of these statutes apply or authorized him to change the ownership and beneficiaries of the policy. Therefore, this opinion does not address the applicability of any such statutes.
¶27. Similarly, in [Ky. Cent. Life Ins.] v. Vollenweider, supra, the Missouri Court of Appeals held that the deceased policy owner’s husband lacked authority make changes to the policy, although he was the insured and was named as her executor in her will. See Vollenweider, 844 S.W.2d [460] at 462 [(Mo. Ct. App. 1992)]. The court held that the husband “never became the personal representative of [his deceased wife’s] estate because her estate was not opened until after [his] death,” and the husband lacked authority to make himself “the owner of the policy merely because he was named as personal representative under [her] will.” Id.
¶28. The result is the same in this case. Neither C.D. nor Otis opened an estate or took any other steps to obtain the authority necessary to act on behalf of Annie’s estate. Therefore, C.D. and Otis lacked the authority to make changes to the ownership or beneficiary designations of the subject life insurance policy, which became the property of Annie’s estate upon her death. Accordingly, Annie’s designation of Angela as the policy’s contingent beneficiary remained in effect at the time of Christopher’s death. And the chancery court correctly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that Angela was entitled to the proceeds of the policy.
The court reversed and remanded on the issue of dismissal of C.D.’s counterclaim. That’s an issue for another post.
As for that footnote, it’s worth your time to dig through the statutes to discover the various ways that heirs (usually called “successors” in the statutes) can transfer ownership of a decedent without going through probate. Bank and securities accounts and car titles are susceptible to such procedures. I have not researched whether life insurance may be changed via a similar statute. My uninformed guess is that the reason no such statute was pled or argued on appeal in this case is that there is none.
Can Supersedeas Stay a Child-Support Order?
March 5, 2018 § Leave a comment
Kasey Hamp sued Bernardrick McKinney through DHS for paternity and child support. McKinney, a professional NFL player, was adjudged to be the father of Hamp’s child and was ordered to pay child support. Later, after McKinney received a signing bonus and increased income, Hamp filed for modification.
Following a hearing, the chancellor ordered an increase in child support and a lump-sum back-payment. McKinney appealed and posted a supersedeas bond. On advice of counsel, he continued paying the pre-modification amount of child support and Hamp filed a contempt action. In his defense, McKinney asserted the supersedeas bond. The chancellor found that the bond was not effective to stay the contempt proceeding because: (a) the ongoing child-support obligation was not a money judgment as provided in MRAP 8(a); and (b) McKinney’s bond was for $28,434.73, which the judge found to be some $8,000 less than the rule’s 125% requirement. McKinney appealed.
On the issue whether a supersedeas bond stays an ongoing obligation to pay child support, the MSSC held that it does not in the case of McKinney v. Hamp decided February 8, 2018. Justice Maxwell wrote for the majority:
¶37. This Court has held that “[t]he amount of a supersedeas bond should be sufficient to protect the appellee in his judgment; therefore, it should insure the payment of the judgment and interest, and any waste that could occur pending the appeal.” In re Estate of Taylor, 539 So. 2d 1029, 1031 (Miss. 1989). And when a supersedeas bond for appeal is approved, execution on the underlying judgment or decree is suspended. Lindsey v. Lindsey, 219 Miss. 720, 723, 69 So. 2d 844, 844-45 (1954).
¶38. In a judicial-performance case, this Court has made very clear that a supersedeas bond stays execution of a child-support-modification order. Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Littlejohn, 172 So. 3d 1157, 1160 (Miss. 2015). Indeed, this Court found a chancellor abused his power and committed misconduct by holding a parent in contempt for not paying a support order he had appealed with a supersedeas bond. Id. That chancellor was suspended without payor disregarding “the clear wording” of Rule 8(a) and this Court’s application of it in Lindsey. Littlejohn, 172 So. 3d at 1160, 1163.
¶39. There is, however, a significant distinction between Littlejohn and this case. That distinction is the difference in the type of child-support payments appealed. In Littlejohn, a child-support order was modified and the father was required to pay $15,000 for an automobile for his child and $1,750 in attorney’s fees—together, a definitive money judgment. And rather than pay this sum, the father secured a supersedeas bond under Rule 8(a). But here, we are dealing with prospective, monthly, child-support obligations, not a definitive money judgment. And this Court has never squarely addressed whether prospective, monthly, child-support obligations can be stayed by a supersedeas bond under
Rule 8(a).
¶40. This Court has, however, recognized the need for continued, monthly, child-support payments to provide support for the child during the pendency of an appeal. Petersen v. Petersen, 238 Miss. 190, 118 So. 2d 300, 304 (1960). In Petersen, the chancellor entered a decree awarding monthly, child-support payments but stated that such payments “should remain in effect pending the appeal with supersedeas . . . .” Petersen, 238 Miss. at 198-99, 118 So. 2d at 304. And this Court held the chancellor was clearly justified in requiring continued, monthly, child-support payments pending an appeal with supersedeas. Id. But until today, this Court has not addressed whether prospective, monthly child-support
payments can be stayed as money judgments by a Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a) supersedeas bond. [Fn 8]
[Fn 8] The Court of Appeals has previously concluded, in an unpublished opinion, that prospective, monthly-child support payments are not money judgments and therefore cannot be stayed by a Rule 8(a) supersedeas bond. See Bland v. McCord, 94-CA-00947-COA, 94-CA-01158-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Sep. 17, 1996).
¶41. Under Mississippi law, child-support payments become fixed and vested when the payments become due and unpaid. Brand v. Brand, 482 So. 2d 236, 237 (Miss. 1986). And as each payment comes due, it becomes “a judgment” against the noncustodial parent. Id. (citations omitted). Once fixed and vested, those judgments cannot be modified. See Hambrick v. Prestwood, 382 So. 2d 474, 476 (Miss. 1980); see also Cunliffe v. Swartzfager, 437 So. 2d 43, 45-46 (Miss. 1983). So, because child-support arrearages and other definitive, one-time, child-support payments can be reduced to money judgments, a Rule 8(a) supersedeas bond can protect an appellee. But that is not necessarily the case for prospective,
monthly, child-support obligations. We find these are not money judgments and cannot be stayed by a Rule 8(a) supersedeas bond.
¶42. But this does not necessarily mean McKinney could not have sought a supersedeas bond. However, to do so, he would have had to make an application to the chancellor for a stay under Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(b). [Fn omitted] And the chancellor, not the clerk, would have to decide whether to approve the bond, in light of an opposing party contesting the bond.
¶43. Turning to this case, we find the chancellor’s order modifying the monthly child support award could not be stayed by a Rule 8(a) supersedeas bond. Accordingly, McKinney was required either to apply for and be granted a supersedeas bond under Rule 8(b) or to make the increased, monthly, child-support payments. But, as to the retroactive child-support award, it was a definitive, one-time payment of a monetary sum. So a Rule 8(a) supersedeas bond would adequately protect Hamp, and ultimately K.M., during the appeal.
¶44. We therefore affirm the chancellor’s ruling that prospective, monthly, child-support obligations are not money judgments that can be stayed by a Rule 8(a) supersedeas bond. However, we reverse and render the chancellor’s decision that a Rule 8(a) supersedeas bond could not stay execution on the retroactive child support.
The court went on to reverse the chancellor’s contempt findings based on McKinney’s belief that he was protected by the supersedeas bond.
Some highlights:
- This case confirms what most chancellors have considered MRAP 8 to mean: that ongoing child support obligation is not stayed by supersedeas.
- This case also confirms what most chancellors have considered MRAP to mean vis a vis money judgments for a fixed sum: that a supersedeas bond will, indeed, stay judgment.
- If there is no agreement between the parties over the amount of the bond or whether it should be granted at all, the matter must be resolved by the chancellor. The clerk’s approval of a bond in that circumstance would be ineffective (See ¶42, above).
- Don’t put too much stock in the majority’s reversal of the contempt finding in this case. There were some particular facts that led to that conclusion (See ¶¶45-48). Justice Beam’s dissent (¶¶54-65) eloquently spells out the ample authority that casts considerable doubt on the defense of “I was Only Relying on my Attorney’s Advice.”
The Need for Findings
February 28, 2018 § 1 Comment
There’s not a whole lot of meat on the bone in the COA’s decision of November 7, 2017, in Sullivan v. Sullivan.
Janice and Wayne Sullivan agreed to a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences, with the chancellor to decide equitable distribution and alimony. Following a trial, the judge rendered an oral ruling, but there was no transcript of it. The final judgment did not reference the court’s ruling, and it did not mention the Ferguson or Armstrong factors.
On appeal the COA reversed and remanded for the court to analyze the proof through the Ferguson factors, and to clarify whether an alimony award was lump-sum or periodic.
It didn’t have to be that way. Here are some preventative steps you can take in a scenario such as this:
- If you are tasked with drafting the judgment, make sure you address each and every Ferguson and Armstrong factor addressed by the court, with a brief stab at the court’s findings. When you do that you have documented what was not documented here — that the judge did analyze the proper factors. And this goes for every kind of case in which trial factors are required to be addressed.
- If for some reason the bench ruling is not transcribed, ask the court before everyone is finally dismissed to order that it be done. If that does not work, file a motion to supplement the record to add the bench ruling.
- If you can’t get the bench ruling into the record, file a timely R59 motion asking the court to make the appropriate findings.
- Oh, and it should go without saying that it is your responsibility as counsel for one of the parties to make a record of the applicable factors in your case. The judge can not address them without evidence to support them. If you’re wondering what the applicable factors are, here is a link to lists of them , which I have referred to as “Checklists.”
A Matter of Interest
February 13, 2018 § 2 Comments
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.
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.
Documenting the Agreement
December 12, 2017 § 2 Comments
Lawyers bicker with each other for a living. Sometimes that bickering spills over into my office. When it does I customarily say, “Bring me an agreed judgment or set the case for trial; don’t argue your case in here.”
There actually is another alternative: you can announce a settlement on the record. Sometimes that works handsomely, but many times not.
As I posted here before, the MSSC ruled in Sanford v. Sanford that you can not dictate a property settlement agreement or consent to divorce into the record and leave it at that. There must be a separate, written agreement.
In Samples v. Davis, 904 So.2d 1061, 1065 (Miss. 2004), the attempted announcement failed because:
There is no transcript in this matter memorializing the alleged agreement; given the fact that there is no transcript, there is no record of the terms to which Samples allegedly agreed, i.e., in the absence of a record, we are without proof of substantial credible evidence to support the chancellor’s order. According to Mississippi Uniform Chancery Court Rules 3.09 and 5.03, if there was an oral agreement, it should have been recorded by the Court reporter or reduced to writing and approved by Samples’ counsel. Neither of these methods were employed. Therefore, we will in effect “wipe the slate clean and put the parties back where they were prior to trial.” Massingill v. Massingill, 594 So.2d 1173, 1177 (Miss.1992).
The latest iteration of issues arising from a settlement announcement is in the case of Black v. Black, decided by the COA on November 7, 2017. Following a contentious divorce in which every major issue was hotly contested, Arthur and Alicia Black appeared before the court for R59 motions and verbally agreed to certain changes in the visitation regimen ordered by the court in its divorce judgment. But when the judge entered his judgment on the R59 motions, he failed to include the parties’ agreement on visitation. On appeal, Arthur argued that it was error for the trial court not to include the parties agreement in its final ruling. The COA agreed, with Judge Barnes writing for a divided court:
¶37. Lastly, Arthur asserts that the chancellor erred in failing to include visitation changes specifically agreed upon during the Rule 59 motions hearing in its posttrial order. Because of these omissions, he seeks to have these revised provisions memorialized. Reviewing the original visitation provisions in conjunction with the subsequent on-the-record agreement between Arthur and Alicia, we find this is proper.
¶38. In the original final order, the chancellor set forth specific visitation privileges with which the parties were to comply. For summer each year, the parties agreed that Arthur would receive the children on June 1 until June 21, and on July 10 until July 24. For Thanksgiving holidays each year, Arthur was to receive the children in odd-numbered years on the day following the last day of school until the day before school was to reconvene. As to Christmas holidays each year, Arthur was to receive the children in the second part of the holiday during odd-numbered years, and the first part of the holiday during even-numbered years.
¶39. However, at the hearing on the Rule 59 motions, Arthur and Alicia verbally revised the provisions of Arthur’s visitation privileges with the children. The parties agreed that for summer visitation, Arthur would receive the children the first Sunday of June, and the Sunday following July 9 each year. They further agreed that Alicia would have the children during Thanksgiving in odd-numbered years, and Arthur would have the children in even numbered years. For Christmas, they agreed that Arthur would have the children the first part of the Christmas holiday in odd-numbered years, and the second part of the holiday in even-numbered years. The parties also agreed that all times relevant to the visitation
provisions should be according to Eastern Standard Time, and that Arthur would maintain a $1,000 credit balance with Alicia for the children’s noncovered medical expenses. Finally, the parties agreed that any remaining balance in a child’s college fund at the conclusion of his or her college schooling would be transferred to the next child for his or her college education.
¶40. Yet none of these revisions were documented in the chancery court’s posttrial order except to note that the visitation-exchange times would be on Eastern Standard Time. To avoid future visitation conflicts, Arthur seeks to have the chancery court incorporate these revised provisions in an order. Due to the material changes to dates, as well as which party shall receive the children during odd- or even-numbered years, we find such memorialization necessary. “If parties reach an agreement, the agreement containing the terms should be signed by the parties’ attorney(s) or in appropriate cases, the parties, or recorded by the court reporter.” Samples v. Davis, 904 So. 2d 1061, 1066 (¶15) (Miss. 2004) (discussing
agreement of parties in open court). Though Arthur and Alicia’s agreement was of record, this is not sufficient to ensure the absence of future conflict regarding these altered provisions. Therefore, we remand on this issue for the chancery court to memorialize the terms of the parties’ final agreement regarding Arthur’s visitation privileges.
I have said here before that orally announcing terms of settlement on the record is an unsatisfactory and inadequate way to represent your client. People do not listen or pay as much attention to what they are saying as they do when they are writing or reading. Settlement announcements often include imprecise terms, incomplete provisions, and lack of attention to detail. We take more time and care with written agreements, and there are two or more sets of eyes scrutinizing their terms.
Of course, in Black the problem was not indefiniteness, but rather lack of a definitive record at all of that to which they agreed. It was compounded by the court’s entry of an order that omitted their agreement, which left open the question whether the court was refusing to approve it, or what exactly the court intended.
Another problem in Black is that, once the chancellor ruled on the R59 motions, that was that. No more proceedings. As I said here before, “In the case of Edwards v. Roberts, 771 So.2d 378 (Miss.App. 2000), the COA held that there is one round of R59 motions, and only one round. You do not get to file for rehearing after the judge has ruled on the motion for rehearing. If that were not so, one could almost permanently toll the time for appeal by filing serial R59 motions after every ruling on previously-filed R59 motions, ad infinitum. There has to be finality of judgments.” Thus, the only avenue for relief following ruling on the R59 motions was appeal.
Parental Actions Against the Best Interest of the Child and Remand
November 21, 2017 § Leave a comment
In Darnell v. Darnell, 167 So.3d 195, 198 (Miss. 2014) (Darnell I), the MSSC remanded the case to the chancellor with directions to consider two statements of a minor child that he had excluded in the trial.
The chancellor had awarded the father, Duff Darnell, custody of the child based largely on conduct of the mother, Carla Darnell. After remand, the judge addressed the statements of the child and made a detailed Albright analysis, after which he again awarded custody to Duff. Carla appealed, and the MSSC affirmed in Darnell v. Darnell, decided October 26, 2017.
The court’s opinion addresses two important issues: parental misconduct toward the other parent; and what the judge is required to consider on remand.
On parental misconduct, the chancellor spelled out what he found to be Carla’s misconduct:
… the actions of the mother, Carla Darnell, taking visitation away from the father, filing charges with the military against the father, accusing the father of being a child molester, and disparaging the father in the small community where the family resided, coupled with her telling the child that the child should tell everybody that he wants to stay with her and not the father adversely impacts the minor child. Darnell II, at ¶7.
The MSSC, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Randolph, rejected Carla’s argument that the chancellor had failed to consider the child’s statements in making his findings:
¶7. That argument is without merit, for the chancellor entered a detailed, twenty-nine page amended final judgment. He addressed the statements made by C.D. to his teacher, Dana Walker, and principal, Machelle Dyess, and Dyess’s testimony regarding those statements. He also considered those statements in conjunction with Dr. Scott Benton’s testimony. He found that no witness who had knowledge of C.D. making the two specific statements testified that C.D. actually had been abused. No evidence was presented that any sexual abuse occurred. The chancellor stated in his order that he considered the three reports of the GAL, the exhibits, and testimony of the parties and witnesses at trial. He found [the conduct set out above].
¶8. Based on the record, the chancellor considered the statements and found that those statements did not change the outcome of his award of custody to Duff. “[T]he chancellor is the finder of fact, and the assessment of witness credibility lies within his sole province.” Carambat v. Carambat, 72 So. 3d 505, 510 (Miss. 2011). The chancellor’s findings are supported by substantial evidence; thus he did not manifestly err in that regard.
The takeaway here on this issue is twofold:
(1) The kind of conduct found by the chancellor is a combination lethal to your client’s claim for custody. You should not come to court with a similar set of facts in the expectation that the judge will not see your client in an unfavorable light.
(2) The chancellor is the finder of fact and assessor of credibility, and, if there is substantial evidence in the record to support his or her findings, those findings will stand on appeal.
As for how the chancellor handled the remand, the record shows that he simply revised his original findings, addressing the excluded evidence as the MSSC directed him to do. No hearing was held, and no further evidence was taken. Carla argued on appeal that by not holding a new hearing the chancellor had erred by failing to take into account the new developments and facts pertaining to custody at the time of the remand. The MSSC rejected Carla’s claim:
¶12. On remand, this Court specifically instructed the chancellor to make:
new findings of fact and conclusions of law in which the first two statements made by C.D. to Dyess and Walker are considered as admissible evidence. Because of the additional evidence, the chancellor also should conduct a new Albright analysis showing the reasons for his ruling, and it would be helpful if he specifically stated why he disagreed with the guardian ad litem’s recommendations.
Id. at 210. This Court did not instruct the chancellor to hold a new hearing, change his findings and conclusions, or consider new evidence of C.D.’s current condition.
¶13. Carla, citing Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So. 3d 1261 (Miss. 2010), argues that the general rule for remanded child custody cases requires a chancellor to consider the child’s circumstances at the time of remand, rather than at the time of the previous hearing. However, this Court has never made such a pronouncement. This Court specifically instructed the chancellor in Vaughn to consider the minor’s present circumstances, if the chancellor made a determination of desertion. Id. at 1267. No such instruction was given to today’s chancellor. This issue is without merit.
In other words, the remanding opinion of the appellate court is the law of the case from that point forward. The chancellor is obligated to do only what the appellate court directs him or her to do. In this case, the chancellor simply took the two statements into account in his amended findings of fact and conclusions of law. No further hearing; no new evidence. The Darnell I remand had not directed the chancellor to conduct an new hearing or to consider evidence arising after the initial trial date.
New Rule: When an Order is Effective
September 19, 2017 § 2 Comments
MRCP 58 specifies that a judgment must be entered by the clerk per R79(a) in order for it to be effective. That’s the rule for a judgment, but what is the rule for an order?
[Refresher … a judgment is a final, appealable ruling of the court that adjudicates all claims of all parties or, if fewer than all issues are resolved or fewer than all parties are affected, the judge includes a certificate per MRCP 54(b). An order, on the other hand, is a ruling by the court on matters brought before it in the course of litigation that do not finally resolve the issues in the case.]
That was the question before the MSSC in Graceland Care Center, et al. v. Hamlet, decided August 17, 2017. Here is how the court describes what happened:
¶1. Teresa Hamlet filed a motion for an extension of time to serve process, prior to the expiration of the 120-day deadline provided by Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h). The trial judge granted the motion and signed an order, yet the order was not filed with the circuit clerk until the day before the granted extension expired, well after the expiration of the original, 120-day deadline. Hamlet served process on three defendants during the extension. On the same day the order was filed, Hamlet filed a second motion for time, which the trial court also granted. While Hamlet served process on the remaining defendants within the second extension period, the order granting the second extension was not filed with the clerk until three months after it was signed by the judge.
¶2. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss Hamlet’s complaint, arguing that the statute of limitations had run before the court’s order granting additional time to serve process had been entered by the clerk of court. The defendants further argued that Hamlet’s suit could not be revived by the untimely filed order. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss . . .
In a 6-3 decision, the court affirmed. Justice King wrote for the majority:
¶27. Therefore, in cases involving ex parte motions, such as the present case, we find that the order becomes effective upon leaving the judge’s control. However, in cases where more than one party is involved and notice becomes essential, we find that an order becomes effective once it is officially entered into the record by the court clerk.
¶28. Of course, there also are certain other orders to which this general rule would not apply. For instance, temporary restraining orders and other emergency orders (such as domestic protective orders) are effective before filing with a clerk. See M.R.C.P. 65(b) (“[T]emporary restraining order . . . shall be filed forthwith in the clerk’s office and entered of record”). In addition, certain rulings of a trial judge that require immediate action, such as those under a judge’s contempt powers, would not be subject to the general rule.
¶29. This rule in no way limits the ability of the trial judge, where otherwise allowed by law, to enter an order nunc pro tunc, make an order retroactive or have it relate back for enforcement purposes. The purpose of this rule is to effectuate notice to the parties and establish some finality as relates to the running of deadlines.
So the rule now is that interlocutory orders are effective upon entry unless they are ex parte, in which case they are effective when they leave the judge’s control.
You need to read the entire opinion to get the rationale and understand how it applies. Also, while you’re at it, Coleman’s dissent, joined by Dickinson and Beam, has plenty of authority contra on the point.
_____________
Thanks to Attorney Andy Lowery for bringing this case to my attention.
When a Judgment Isn’t a Judgment
September 13, 2017 § 3 Comments
If a chancellor finally adjudicates a case with an instrument entitled “Order,” is that a final, appealable judgment?
Check out MRCP 58:
Every judgment shall be set forth on a separate document which bears the title of “Judgment.” However, a judgment which finally adjudicates the claim as to all parties and which has been entered as provided in MRCP 79(a) shall, in the absence of prejudice to a party, have the force and finality of a judgment even if it is not properly titled … [my emphasis]
That language came into play in the recent COA case, Bray, et al. v. Wooten, et al. handed down August 22, 2017.
In that case, on May 12, 2014, the chancellor rendered a final ruling following a hearing, and entitled it “Opinion and Order.” The order was filed the same day in the office of the chancery clerk. Later, on July 11, 2014, a document entitled “Final Judgment,” that had been drafted by one of the attorneys and signed by all counsel, was erroneously presented to the other chancellor in the district. He signed it that day, no doubt not taking time to study it in detail because it was signed off on by all counsel, and it was entered by the clerk on July 15, 2014. A motion for new trial was filed within ten days of entry of the July judgment, and was overruled ruled by the original chancellor in January, 2015. The appeal was filed within thirty days of the chancellor’s January, 2015, ruling, which came eight months after the May, 2014, final order. Here’s what the COA said about it:
¶17. We begin with the jurisdictional issues. [One of the appellants] argues that the Bray’s notice of appeal was untimely. It claims that the final judgment was Chancellor Kilgore’s Order and Opinion dated May 12, 2014. Thus, since the Bray’s notice of appeal was not filed until February 10, 2015, it was almost seven months late, and this appeal should be dismissed.
¶18. “[W]e review questions of law, such as jurisdiction, utilizing a de novo standard of review.” Weeks v. State, 139 So. 3d 727, 729 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Whetstone v. State, 109 So. 3d 616, 618 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013)). Mississippi Power argues that Chancellor Kilgore’s January 14, 2015 order stated that his final order was the May 12, 2014 order. Thus, Mississippi Power contends that Bray did not timely perfect the appeal. Bray counters that Mississippi Power did not join Wooten’s motion for summary judgment or move separately for summary judgment, meaning the chancellor’s judgment was not final. We address both of these arguments.
¶19. “A final, appealable, judgment is one that adjudicates the merits of the controversy and settles all the issues as to all the parties and requires no further action by the lower court.” Jennings v. McCelleis, 987 So. 2d 1041, 1042 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Walters v. Walters, 956 So. 2d 1050, 1053 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007)). “Generally, only final judgments are appealable.” Walters, 956 So. 2d at 1053 (¶8) (quoting M.W.F. v. D.D.F., 926 So. 2d 897, 899 (¶4) (Miss. 2006)).
¶20. Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 58 provides:
Every judgment shall be set forth on a separate document which bears the title of “Judgment.” However, a judgment which fully adjudicates the claim as to all parties and which has been entered as provided in M.R.C.P. 79(a) shall, in the absence of prejudice to a party, have the force and finality of a judgment even if it is not properly titled. A judgment shall be effective only when entered as provided in M.R.C.P. 79(a).
In his January 14, 2015 “Opinion and Order,” Chancellor Kilgore ruled:
This order was filed in the office of the Chancery Clerk on May 12, 2014. Although this judgment was styled “Opinion and Order” and was clearly intended to be a final resolution to the action, counsel for Wooten acknowledged that he drafted a document entitled “Final Judgment”’ and mistakenly submitted same to the other Chancery Judge in the district, who signed this order on the 11th day of July, 2014.
¶21. The chancellor’s May 12, 2014 order was entitled “Opinion and Order.” It did not comply with Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 58, which clearly requires that a final judgement [sic] be titled “Final Judgment” in order to be considered one. A further analysis through Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a) does not support the chancellor’s ruling.
¶22. Therefore, we find that the chancellor’s May 12, 2014 Opinion and Order was not a final, appealable judgment, and it did not have the force and finality of a judgment. The fact that the parties’ attorneys prepared and signed a “Final Judgment” supports our decision. Had it been submitted to the correct chancellor, there would be no argument that the notice of appeal was untimely. Regardless, the earliest possible appealable “final judgment” in this case was the Final Judgment that was signed on July 11, and entered on July 15, 2014. The motion for a new trial was filed on July 25, 2014, which was within ten days as required by Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 59(b). Because the notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of the chancellor’s January 14, 2015 “Opinion and Order,” we find no merit to this issue.
If the COA is trying to say that the labelling of the May ruling worked prejudice on the appellant that was compounded by his submission of the “Final Judgment” to the wrong judge, okay. That makes sense under R 58, which specifically says that mislabelling of a final judgment is only fatal to its finality if it creates a prejudice to a party.
But the COA’s language at ¶21 is too sweeping to me when it says, “[The May Order] did not comply with Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 58, which clearly requires that a final judgment be titled “Final Judgment” in order to be considered one.” On the contrary, under R 58, the chancellor could have tiled it “Laundry List,” and, if it finally adjudicated all claims as to all parties, it would be a final, appealable judgment if no one could show prejudice. The language of the opinion, which may be quoted as authority, can be taken to mean something contrary to the express language of the rule.
The wrinkle here was the submission to and signing of counsel’s “Final Judgment” by a busy chancellor who was likely interrupted in other matters to accommodate the request. Had the document been submitted to the proper chancellor, I believe he would have declined to sign it on the basis that he had already issued a final ruling in the case. He said as much in his January, 2015, ruling on the R 59 motion.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 