Pleading | The Better Chancery Practice Blog

MISSING THE ADVERSE EFFECT TO MODIFY

April 1, 2013 § 1 Comment

In Roberts, v. Roberts, decided March 19, 2013, the COA (majority opinion by Judge Roberts, btw) reversed a chancellor’s decision modifying custody where the chancellor did find material change in circumstances, but did not make a finding of adverse effect on the child, and did not address the Albright factors.

Scott Roberts and his ex-wife Stephanie had come to an agreement that their son Tristan could live with Scott, and that Scott could reduce the child support concomitantly. Scott did not pay the reduced amount as agreed, however. Stephanie later sued Scott for unpaid child support in the amount originally ordered by the court. Scott counterclaimed for custody and defended against her claim for child support that he should be liable only for the extra-judicial amount to which the parties had agreed.

Scott’s pleading for custody, styled “counter motion for custody,” did not expressly pray for modification of custody. Instead, it asked that “hereafter, each party should be responsible for child support of the child in their respective custody with neither party responsible for future support of the other.” It also stated that because Tristan had moved in with Scott full-time, there had been a material change in circumstances warranting modification so that neither should pay child support to the other. The COA, at ¶ 29 found these allegations sufficient to put the issue of modification of custody before the trial court, on the basis that, under MRCP 8(f), “All pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice” and, per the comment, ” … that the rights of the client are not lost by the poor drafting skills of counsel.” The court concluded that to do otherwise would be to favor form over substance.

The court reversed and remanded the issue of custody, however. Here’s what the decision said:

The COA reversed and remanded, however, so the pleading, with its flaws, goes back for the chancellor for a do-over. Here’s what the COA said:

¶30. Next, Stephanie claims the chancellor erred by modifying custody of Tristan without first finding that there had been a material change in circumstances adverse to Tristan’s best interest. “The Mississippi Supreme Court [has] held that the prerequisites to the modification of child custody are: (1) proving a material change in circumstances which adversely affects the welfare of the child and (2) finding that the best interest of the child requires the change of custody.” McMurry v. Sadler, 846 So. 2d 240, 243 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Touchstone v. Touchstone, 682 So. 2d 374, 377 (Miss. 1996)). “[F]or the custody order to be modified so as to transfer custody to the non-custodial parent, the non-custodial parent must prove that since the entry of the decree or order sought to be modified, a material change of circumstances has occurred within the custodial home which adversely affects the minor child’s welfare.” Id. at 244 (¶13). “Therefore, in order for the court to proceed on a matter for custody modification, the pleadings must contain allegations that a material change has occurred which adversely affects the child.” Id. It is inappropriate to modify child custody when the non-custodial parent did not file a motion that specifically stated or alleged that there had been a material change in circumstances that adversely affected a child. Id. at (¶14).

¶31. Scott did not claim that there had been a material change in circumstances or that such a change was adverse to Tristan. Furthermore, the chancellor merely held that there had been a material change in circumstances. The chancellor did not find that a material change in circumstances was adverse to Tristan. Furthermore, the chancellor did not conduct an Albright analysis to determine which parent should have custody of Tristan. This Court has held that when considering a modification of child custody, the proper approach is to first identify the specific change in circumstances, and then analyze and apply the Albright factors in light of that change. Where there is no specific identification of the alleged change in circumstances, this Court is placed in the position of attempting to guess what the chancellor determined was a proper basis for a change in custody. Thornell v. Thornell, 860 So. 2d 1241, 1243 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (quoting Sturgis v. Sturgis, 792 So. 2d 1020, 1025 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001)) (quotation marks omitted). Here, we can only guess why the chancellor found that a material change in circumstances was adverse to Tristan’s best interest. Furthermore, the chancellor did not conduct an Albright analysis before he found that it was appropriate to award custody of Tristan to Scott. In Thornell, 860 So. 2d at 1243 (¶¶7-8), this Court reversed a chancellor’s decision to modify child custody, because the chancellor failed to identify a specific change in circumstances that adversely affected the welfare of the child, and the chancellor failed to conduct an on-the-record analysis of the Albright factors. This Court concluded that it was appropriate to reverse the chancellor’s judgment and remand the matter to the chancellor for further proceedings. Id. at (¶¶8-9). Following Thornell, we remand this matter to the chancellor for further proceedings regarding how Tristan’s decision to live primarily with Scott amounted to a material change in circumstances adverse to Tristan’s best interest in light of the fact that Scott and Stephanie agreed that they would have joint physical custody of Tristan and Carleigh.

I agree that the case should have been reversed, but in my opinion the pleadings were fatally defective on two counts:

In McMurry v. Sadler, 846 So.2d 240, 243-4 (Miss. App. 2002), it was held that a mere allegation of material change in circumstances in a pleading was inadequate to support a claim for modification, and that the pleading must expressly include the allegation that the change has had an adverse effect on the child. A distinguishing factor here is that, apparently, that issue was not contemporaneously raised to the chancellor as it was via a motion to dismiss in McMurry; but it was raised in this case by Stephanie on appeal. Although the appellate opinion references McMurry, it does so not for the pleading aspect of the case, but only for its holding that the proof must support a finding of adverse effect. I agree with Judge Roberts that the requirement imposed in McMurry elevates form over substance, but that is what the appellate court specifically mandated for this specific cause of action, “notice pleading” notwithstanding.
These pleadings do not even state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In Arnold v. Conwill, 562 So.2d 97 (Miss. 1990), the supreme court held that where the parties agree for a child to live for a time with the other parent, that circumstance standing alone does not support modification of custody. Since that is all that Scott pled, I don’t see how he could get a permanent modification on the strength of this pleading.

A FEW THOUGHTS ON DISABILITIES OF MINORITY

February 27, 2013 § 4 Comments

In a case before me recently, one of the lawyers filed a motion to set aside an agreed judgment executed by a nineteen-year-old woman by which she had agreed that the father of her child could have custody. The lawyer argued that she was incompetent by virtue of her age to execute and be bound by such a judgment. The motion got me thinking that maybe a few thoughts about disabilities of minority would be in order.

MCA 93-19-13 provides that all persons 18 years of age or older “shall have the capacity to enter into binding contractual relationships affecting personal property,” unless otherwise disqualified or prohibited by law. It goes on to allow persons 18 or older to sue or be sued in their own right over such contracts.
“We therefore hold section 93-19-13, (Supp. 1980) effectively removes the disability of minority of all persons 18 years or older for the purpose of entering into contracts affecting personal property including the right to settle a claim for personal injuries, to execute a contract settling the claim, and to accept money in settlement of the claim.” Garrett v. Gay, 394 So.2d 321, 322-23 (Miss. 1981).
Garrett also stated that an 18-or-older minor has the right to deal with his or her own choses in action, which “is the right of bringing an action, or a right to recover debt or money, or a right of proceeding in a court of law to procure the payment of a sum of money, or a right to recover a personal chattel or a sum of money by action, or, as it is defined by statute, a right to recover money or personal property by a judicial proceeding.”
The statute pertains to personal property rights only, and does not extend to real estate. MCA 93-19-1 provides for removal of disabilities of minority to authorize the minor “to sell and convey, to mortgage, to lease, and to make deeds of trust and contracts, including promissory notes,” with respect to his or her interest as effectively as if he or she were 21 years or older.
MCA 93-19-13 provides that a married minor (Note: MCA 1-3-27 defines “minor” as a person under the age of 21) is under no disability with respect to bringing or defending a divorce or separate maintenance action, child support and custody and any other marital issues between the parties. The statute specifies “married” minors, and would not appear to embrace unmarried minors.
MCA 93-5-9 essentially mirrors 93-19-13.
Minors may not vote. Article 12, Section 241, Mississippi Constitution, except as provided in the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Minors may not waive process. Rule 4(e), MRCP.
Minors may not select their own domicile, but must have that of the parents. Boyle vs. Griffin, 84 Miss.41, 36 So. 141, 142 (Miss. 1904); In re Guardianship of Watson, 317 So.2d 30, 32 (Miss. 1975); Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians vs. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 40; 109 S.Ct. 1597, 1603 (1989).
Minors may not enter into binding contracts regarding personal property or sue or be sued in their own right in regard to contracts into which they have entered. Section 93-19-13, MCA.
Minors may not have an interest in an estate without having a guardian appointed for them. Section 93-13-13, MCA.
Minors may not be bound by contracts for the sale of land, and may void them at their option. Edmunds vs. Mister, 58 Miss. 765 (1881).
Minors may not choose the parent with whom they shall live in a divorce or modification; although they may state a preference, their choice is not binding on the Chancellor. Section 93-11-65, MCA; Westbrook vs Oglesbee, 606 So.2d 1142, 1146 (Miss. 1992); Bell vs. Bell, 572 So.2d 841, 846 (Miss. 1990).
Minors may not after emancipation be bound by or enforce contracts entered into during minority except by following certain statutory procedures. Section 15-3-11, MCA.
Minors may not legally consent to have sexual intercourse. Section 97-3-65(b).
Minors may not legally consent to be fondled. Section 97-5-23(1).
Minors are protected by an extended statute of limitations. Section 15-1-59, MCA.

There may be more, and I have not gone back and checked all of the authority above. Before using any of this, be sure to verify the citations and what they say.

FAILURE TO AMEND

February 19, 2013 § 1 Comment

It’s pretty common for lawyers to file pleadings subsequent to their initial pleading with updated allegations, added issues, and the word “Amended” prominently displayed in the document’s title. Quite often the lawyer on the other side treats the subsequent pleading(s) as the one(s) at issue, and the proof proceeds accordingly.

That practice, however, is not what the rules require, and, as we shall see, can cost your client big time. The proper procedure to amend pleadings is set out in MRCP 15:

(a) Amendments. A party may amend a pleading as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served, or, if a pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any time within thirty days after it is served. On sustaining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), or for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 12(c), leave to amend shall be granted when justice so requires upon conditions and within time as determined by the court, provided matters outside the pleadings are not presented at the hearing on the motion. Otherwise a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or upon written consent of the adverse party; leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. A party shall plead in response to an amended pleading within the time remaining for response to the original pleading or within ten days after service of the amended pleading, whichever period may be longer, unless the court otherwise orders.

and

(d) Supplemental Pleadings. Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit the party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences, or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. Permission may be granted even though the original pleading is defective in its statement of a claim for relief or defense. If the court deems it advisable that the adverse party plead to the supplemental pleading, it shall so order, specifying the time therefor.

So to amend after the deadline in R15(a), you have to get leave of court. Otherwise, that “Amended” pleading is a nullity.

That’s what happened in McKnight v. Jenkins, decided February 14, 2013, by the MSSC.

Holly McKnight filed a petition to modify custody against Walter Jenkins, the father of her child whom she had given custody in a prior judgment of the court. Walter countered with a counterclaim for contempt and for modification. The contempt allegation was based on Holly’s alleged failure to return all of the child’s belongings at the conclusion of visitation. Some time before the date set for hearing, Walter filed a motion to amend his pleading to add the allegation that Holly had failed to pay her share of the child’s medical expenses, but Walter never presented the motion to the court.

Following a hearing, the chancellor denied Holly’s petition to modify, but found her in contempt for failure to pay the medical bills, and ordered her to pay Walter $21,000 for her share.

The MSSC reversed, pointing out that in order to recover on a contempt claim, there must be a pleading putting the other party on notice. The unamended pleading simply did not support the relief granted. By failing to get a court order granting leave to amend, Walter’s award of $21,000 was reversed.

There is language in the opinion to the effect that the parties understood that the issue of contempt for failure to pay the medical bills was not properly before the court, and the judge acknowledged as much, but he went ahead and adjudicated contempt anyway, which was error. Of course, had the issue been tried without objection, Walter’s lawyer could have made a timely motion to conform the pleadings to the proof, as set out in MRCP 15(b):

(b) Amendment to Conform to the Evidence. When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by expressed or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure so to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so freely when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the admission of such evidence would prejudice the maintaining of the action or defense upon the merits. The court may grant a continuance to enable the objecting party to meet such evidence. The court is to be liberal in granting permission to amend when justice so requires.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO RECONSIDER YOUR MRCP 59 MOTIONS

February 7, 2013 § 1 Comment

Judge Griffis tells of a time that he filed a “Motion to Reconsider” in federal court after a judgment that he took issue with had been entered. Judge Lee, in his ruling, devoted the first page or two to pointing out that there is no such motion.

When I heard the story, I took exception and pointed out that even under our pre-MRCP practice there was a motion to reconsider, and that the MRCP even continues our pre-rules practice. I added that lawyers even today file motions to “reconsider.”

Well, I was wrong. Sort of.

MRCP 59 says that a new trial may be granted ” … in an action tried without a jury, for any of the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the courts of Mississippi.”

That’s rehearing, not reconsideration.

To discover the reasons for which rehearings were granted in pre-rules suits in equity, I consulted Griffith, Mississippi Chancery Practice, 2d Ed., 1950, which is the bible of pre-rules practice. Under that ancient practice, all the business of the court was conducted during the terms. All judgments became final on the last day of the term, unless the judge entered an order during the term that set a matter for hearing on a day outside the term (“in vacation”), and orders and decrees could not be altered or amended by the chancellor after the term ended except for some very limited circumstances.

During the term, all decrees and orders issued by the chancellor, even if filed, were considered to be “in the bosom of the court,” and could be changed, altered, withdrawn or vacated by the court at any time up to the close of the term, either on its own motion, or on motion of any party to the suit. The request to the court during the term was a “motion for rehearing,” and some of the bases mentioned by Griffith are: on the court’s on motion to vacate or modify its decree; reargument to point out an overlooked point of law; urging a different result based on something in evidence that the court failed to mention; and newly-discovered evidence (now an MRCP 60 matter).

So “the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the courts of Mississippi” include not merely a naked request for a new trial, but also a request for the chancellor to go back and study the evidence and the law again, to see whether perhaps a different result would have been reached. The judge could then, during the term, alter the decree or order, or withdraw it and direct a new trial.

That smells a lot like both reconsideration on the one hand, and rehearing on the other.

Even today in chancery court, lawyers may know under the rules that they are asking for rehearing, but they know, too, that they are asking for reconsideration. Out of curiosity, I asked my staff attorney to pull up the R59 motions that had been filed in the preceding year. Of the dozens filed, only a couple were styled or even asked for “rehearing.” Nearly every one was styled “Motion for Reconsideration,” or asked for reconsideration. That’s reconsideration, not rehearing.

Thus, I was sort of right, and sort of wrong in response to Judge Griffis. Right in the sense that the common usage is to call a R59 motion a request for reconsideration, and to ask for reconsideration. Wrong because the rule and pre-rule practice call for rehearing.

It’s not a big deal because the MSSC said many years ago after the MRCP went into effect that judges are to look to the substance of the motion, and not the form, and MRCP 8(f) mandates that pleadings be construed so as to do “substantial justice.” Thus, what you call the motion, and whether you ask for rehearing or reconsideration, is less important than clearly invoking MRCP 59.

Most “Motions for Reconsideration” are just that. They ask the court, “Please, take a look at this one more time and, please, change your mind.” That’s not in keeping with the rehearing language of R59, but it definitely captures what the pre-rules practice was. As the COA said in Brown v. Weatherspoon, which is a R60 case, but the principle is the same, “Finality should yield to fairness.”

Don’t worry too much about getting caught with your proverbial pants down in an appeal because you called your R59 motion one for reconsideration, rather than rehearing. It appears that reconsideration is the vogue word for our appellate judges, too …

Check this out from the COA decision in Estate of Ristroph v. Ristroph, decided in January, 2013: “John then filed a motion to reconsider under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 59. While awaiting the chancellor’s decision on John’s Rule 59 motion, Paul filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the other alleged inter vivos gifts, contending these claims were also time-barred under section 15-1-49. The chancellor denied John’s motion to reconsider the timeliness of his petition to set aside the warranty deed, and John appealed the denial to the Mississippi Supreme Court.”
And this from the COA in Rodgers v. Moore, et al., decided in November, 2012: “According to the briefs, plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal with the chancery court. The chancery court entered an order on March 8, 2007, denying the motion to reconsider.”

I am sure there are more, but you get the picture.

JUST AND PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES

November 29, 2012 § Leave a comment

A chancellor has the power to impose conditions that may seem “just and proper under the circumstances,” regardless whether any party demanded such relief. Miss. State Highway Commission v. Spencer, 233 Miss. 155, 101 So.2d 499, 504-05 (1958).

The source of this power is apparent in several of the maxims of equity:

Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy.
Equity delights to do complete justice and not by halves.
Equity acts specifically and not by way of compensation.

The proper focus of a chancery court remedy, then, should be to fix the underlying problem, completely and not in part.

In three recent COA cases, the court upheld chancellors’ rulings where the trial judge went beyond the pleadings to fashion a remedy designed to fix the underlying problem.

In Goolsby v. Crane, decided October 23, 2012, and discussed in a previous post, the parties were before the court on the mother’s petition to modify to increase child support, and the father’s counterclaim for custody. After hearing all of the testimony, particularly that of the children, the chancellor found that the then-existing visitation schedule was not working, and he modified the visitation schedule. No one had asked for that particular relief, but the COA affirmed on the basis that there was substantial evidence to support the judge’s action.

The case of Finch v. Finch, handed down October 2, 2012, which was the subject of a previous post here, arose from post-divorce contempt and modification procedures. The ex-husband pled that the ex-wife’s alimony should be terminated because she had misled him about joint debts when he agreed to a property settlement agreement, and he now found himself saddled with considerable debt. The chancellor took it a step further and found that the ex-wife had committed a fraud on the court, justifying termination of her alimony. The ex-wife appealed, copmplaining that the ex-husband had failed properly to plead fraud (see Rogers v. Rogers, decided August 1, 2012, and posted about here). The COA affirmed, finding that there was a substantial basis to support the chancellor’s decision, and pointing out anyway that the mention of the words “falsely represented” in the ex-husband’s petition was enough notice that the issue was in play. The court also pointed out that the chancellor has the power under MRCP 60(b) on her own motion to address fraud.

In Scott v. Scott, decided October 30, 2012, the parties had entered into a 1997 property settlement agreement that gave the ex-wife all of the ex-husband’s Tier II Railroad Retirement Benefits “through the date of the divorce.” A separate order was drafted for submission to the retirment agency in the form required by that agency, but the order left out the phrase “through the date of the divorce.” Predictably, when the husband applied for his benefits, he learned to his chagrin that the agency, relying on the order, had awarded the wife 100% of the Tier II without limitation. The ex-husband asked the chancellor to modify to correct the situation, and the ex-wife denied that the property division could be modified. The chancellor brushed aside both positions and invoked MRCP 60(a) to correct the clear discrepancy between the express terms of the parties’ agreement and the order. The COA affirmed.

The common thread in each of these cases is that the trial judge did what she or he deemed “just and proper under the circumstances” to fix the underlying problem. It’s a matter of substance over form.

CUSTODY WHEN THERE IS NO DIVORCE

November 27, 2012 § Leave a comment

In the COA case of Jones v. Jones, decided November 13, 2012, Carrie Jones filed for divorce against her husband, Donald, who in turn filed a counterclaim for divorce against her. The parties agreed to present the case in a bifurcated fashion, first presenting proof of grounds for divorce and letting the court adjudicate the divorce before proceeding to other issues.

Carrie presented her evidence, at the conclusion of which Donald moved for dismissal under MRCP 41(b). The chancellor ruled that Carrie had not met her burden of proof, and dismissed her complaint. Donald then dismissed his counterclaim. When Carrie asked to go forward on the remaining isssues of child custody and support, the chancellor refused on the basis that her complaint was dismissed, and there was nothing further to adjudicate.

Carrie appealed, raising several issues (she did not contest the denial of the divorce).

First, she claimed that the chancellor had a constitutional duty to protect the child, and that the court should have adjudicated custody even though the divorce complaint was dismissed. Judge Fair, writing for the majority, agreed that the chancery court has a duty to protect children, but disagreed that the duty extended to adjudicating custody in a situation such as this. He wrote:

This [constitutional] responsibility does not impose upon chancellors an affirmative duty to adjudicate custody for every dismissed divorce complaint.

¶6. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that a chancellor may provide for the custody of children after dismissing a complaint for divorce. See Waller v. Waller, 754 So. 2d 1181, 1183 (¶12) (Miss. 2000). “The court, however, is not required to make a decision regarding custody where it dismisses the petition for divorce.” Id. (citations omitted).

¶7. In domestic-relations matters, chancellors enjoy considerable discretion and are trusted to evaluate the specific facts of each case. See Harrell v. Harrell, 231 So. 2d 793, 797 (Miss. 1970). Here, the limited record contains no indication that either parent would be unfit or unsuitable for custody. We cannot say the chancellor abused his discretion by declining to adjudicate custody.

Second, she argued that the court should have dismissed only the divorce complaint and left standing her claim for custody. This, too, the court rejected:

¶10. Carrie characterizes her claims for custody and child support as independent actions cognizable under section 93-11-65 of the Mississippi Code Annotated (Supp. 2012). But our case law contradicts this interpretation. In Slaughter v. Slaughter, 869 So. 2d 386, 397 (¶33) (Miss. 2004), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a custody matter may not proceed under section 93-11-65 when a divorce is pending. Therefore, Carrie’s claims for custody and child support cannot properly be understood as independent issues. Mississippi Code Annotated section “93-5-23 provides for the child’s care and custody in a divorce situation and 93-11-65 . . . is an alternative[.]” Slaughter, 869 So. 2d at 396 (¶33).

[The opinion goes on to distinguish the holding in the modification case, Anderson v. Anderson, 961 So. 2d 55, 59-60 (¶¶8-10) (Miss. 2007)].

How do you avoid a result like Jones? It seems to me you could plead in counts, Count I being the claim for divorce, equitable distribution, a 93-5-24 claim for custody, etc., and Count II being the 93-11-65 child custody and support claim. By pleading in counts you are in my opinion filing what amounts to severable law suits. Under Slaughter, then, you would be barred from proceeding on Count II as long as Count I is pending. But if Count I is dismissed, you still have Count II to fall back on, and it would be viable at that point because the 93-5-24 claim is dismissed.

There is a caveat, however. The venue requirements for divorce and 93-11-65 are not identical. You may have venue for the divorce, but not for 93-11-65.

I’m not saying categorically that this is the answer to the problem because I have not researched the question beyond Jones and Slaughter. The tactic I am suggesting, however, was not employed in either of those cases, as far as I can tell from reading the opinions. Thus, my solution gives you an arguable basis to go forward on custody if you are stymied on grounds for divorce.

IS THERE AN INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TPR?

October 1, 2012 § 5 Comments

Termination of parental rights pursuant to MCA 93-15-103 has long been treated, at least in this chancery district, as an independent cause of action that may be invoked whenever the criteria of 93-15-103(3) are met.

The COA decision in LePori v. Welch (discussed here in a previous post dealing with other points), decided June 26, 2012, though, calls that theory into question.

In his opinion for the court, Judge Maxwell addresses the appellant’s argument that the chancellor failed to address the “substantial erosion” factor set out in 93-15-103(3)(f). He said, beginning in ¶5:

But the grounds for termination in section 93-15-103(3) are to be considered only when the circumstances of section 93-15-103(1) are met:

When a child has been removed from the home of its natural parents and cannot be returned to the home of his natural parents within a reasonable length of time because returning to the home would be damaging to the child or the parent is unable or unwilling to care for the child, relatives are not appropriate or are unavailable, and when adoption is in the best interest of the child, taking into account whether the adoption is needed to secure a stable placement for the child and the strength of the child’s bonds to his natural parents and the effect of future contacts between them, the grounds listed in subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall be considered as grounds for the termination of parental rights. The grounds may apply singly or in combination in any given case.

Miss. Code Ann. § 93-15-103(1).

¶6. It is clear from the plain language of section 93-15-103—as well as the cases that have applied this section—the concern of the statute is when a parent’s rights may be terminated in order for the child to be adopted. E.g., S.R.B.R. v. Harrison County Dep’t of Human Servs., 798 So. 2d 437, 445 (¶32) (Miss. 2001) … [Emphasis in original text]

The above language is not the actual holding of the case, but it is about as clear a statement that you will find interpreting the intent and purpose of 93-15-103(1), which is the threshold statute for TPR. What Judge Maxwell is saying, in my opinion, is that there is no cause of action for TPR that is independent of an adoption. TPR is done ” … in order for the child to be adopted … ,” in Judge Maxwell’s own words.

I wonder, though, what this language of the statute means in light of that interpretation: ” … and when adoption is in the best interest of the child, taking into account whether the adoption is needed to secure a stable placement for the child and the strength of the child’s bonds to his natural parents and the effect of future contacts between them …” What about where the court finds that adoption is not needed to secure a stable placement? Does that cancel out the TPR action if all the criteria are proven?

My emphatic answer is … I don’t know. What I do know is that nine judges of the COA joined in Judge Maxwell’s opinion, and that one concurred ” … in part and in the result without separate written opinion,” making it 99% unanimous. So the mind of the COA on the subject would appear to be clear.

I also know that this would appear to change the way we have done business in this district, and maybe in yours, too. Stay tuned for further developments.

MRCP 81 NOTCHES A CURIOUS KILL

September 6, 2012 § 3 Comments

The latest case to fall prey to the predatory MRCP 81 is Pearson v. Browning, decided September 4, 2012, by the COA. We last looked at the vicissitudes of the rule in a post about Brown, et al v. Tate.

The case that brought Pearson v. Browning to the COA began when Dennis Pearson filed a pro se pleading against his ex-wife, Patricia Browning, seeking modification and contempt. Although the procedural history is not entirely clear, it appears that Patricia filed a counterclaim-like pleading charging Dennis with contempt. Both matters came up for hearing on February 2, 2009, when dennis failed to appear, and the chancellor dismissed his claims. The judge ordered that Patricia’s claims be reset for hearing for August 6, 2009. On or about June 10, 2012, however, the court administrator gave notice that the date was again reset, for November 3, 2010. There is no court order setting the November date.

Patricia’s attorney sent Dennis a letter, dated October 15, 2010, notifying him of the November 3, 2010, trial date. Dennis testified that he did not receive it until November 1, 2010, and he filed a letter complaining of the short notice.

On November 3, 2010, Dennis appeared personally pro se and protested the lack of time to prepare his defense and lack of notice of what he was being charged with. He moved for a continuance. The judge denied his motion and pressed on to hearing. On November 18, 2010, the chancellor entered a judgment against Dennis in favor of Patricia in the sum of $53,528.22.

The COA reversed. Judge Griffis’s opinion spells out the basic law of MRCP 81:

¶7. In this case, jurisdiction is governed by Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 81(d)(2), because it includes the “modification or enforcement of custody, support, and alimony judgments” and “contempt.”

¶8. A Rule 81 summons is necessary to begin dormant domestic actions listed in Rule 81(d). A Rule 81 summons is not a Rule 4 summons. See M.R.C.P. 4. A Rule 81 summons gives notice to the defendant of the date, time, and place to appear. It does not require a response. A Rule 4 summons requires a written response in thirty days. A Rule 4 summons and a Rule 5 notice have no effect with Rule 81 matters. Sanghi [v. Sanghi], 759 So. 2d at 1253 (¶¶11, 14) (citing Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc., 661 So. 2d 188, 194 (Miss. 1995); Powell v. Powell, 644 So. 2d 269, 273-74 (Miss. 1994)); see M.R.C.P. 5.

¶9. In a matter that requires a Rule 81 summons and does not use a Rule 81 summons, the resulting judgment is void because it is made without jurisdiction over the parties. See Bryant, Inc. v. Walters, 493 So. 2d 933, 938 (Miss. 1986); Duvall v. Duvall, 224 Miss. 546, 555, 80 So. 2d 752, 755 (1955); Roberts v. Roberts, 866 So. 2d 474, 476-77 (¶¶7-8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). If an action under Rule 81(d)(1) or (2) “is not heard on the day set for hearing, it may by order signed on that day be continued to a later day for hearing without additional summons on the defendant or respondent.” M.R.C.P. 81(d)(5). For no additional Rule 81 summons to be required, the order that continues the trial date must be signed on or before the original trial date.

¶10. In this appeal, Pearson argues that Browning failed to comply with Rule 81(d)(5). Specifically, Pearson argues that jurisdiction lapsed because a court administrator’s notice changed the trial date of January 22, 2008 to January 23, 2008; an order dated October 24, 2008 changed the trial date of September 18, 2008 to February 2, 2009; a court administrator’s notice dated June 11, 2010 changed the trial date of August 6, 2009 to November 3, 2010; and Pearson received a letter on November 1, 2010 about the November 3, 2010 trial.

¶11. Our review is limited to events that occurred after February 2, 2009. Because Pearson was the plaintiff prior to February 2, 2009, he cannot properly raise a jurisdictional issue before that date. By the fact that a plaintiff brought his claim, he consents to personal jurisdiction in that court. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 775, 779 (1984).

¶12. Rule 81(d)(5) governs the need for additional summons on the defendant. Before February 2, 2009, Pearson simply was not entitled to a Rule 81 summons because he was the plaintiff.

¶13. On February 2, 2009, the chancery court dismissed all of Pearson’s claims with prejudice. The only claims left before the court were Browning’s contempt claims against Pearson. Hence, after February 2, 2009, Pearson was no longer the plaintiff.

¶14. Whether an additional Rule 81 summons was required and, thus, whether the chancery court had jurisdiction over Pearson on November 3, 2010, depends on: (1) whether Browning’s “motion” was actually a petition for contempt; (2) whether the court administrator’s notice was sufficient to substitute for the lack of a Rule 81 summons; (3) whether Pearson’s case is similar to Bailey v. Fischer, 946 So. 2d 404 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006); and (4) whether Pearson made an appearance, thereby waiving the lack of a Rule 81 summons.

The COA concluded that Patricia’s “motion” was, in fact, a petition for contempt that required Rule 81 notice, that the court administrator’s notice was not adequate to suffice in lieu of a proper MRCP 81 summons, that Bailey is distinguishable, and that Dennis had not waived the jurisdictional issues by making a voluntary appearance. The court reversed the chancery court judgment for lack of jurisdiction.

The four bases listed above for determination of the Rule 81 issue deserve further attention in one or more future posts and will not be addressed further here.

A few observations based on the foregoing:

I call this case curious because, once Dennis had been properly served with the counterclaim, in most districts that I am aware of, he was only entitled from that point to Rule 5 notice. This case seems to say either that a counterclaim requires a Rule 81 process, or that one must be issued if the original plaintiff’s pleading is dismissed. I have never seen this practice in my 29 years’ experience under the MRCP. I admit that I have had trouble understanding the exact procedural chronology of this case, so the problem may be mine. But if my understanding is correct, this case is a major change in Rule 81 practice that you need to study very carefully.
Once again, if the matter that is the subject of your Rule 81 summons will not be heard on the day specified in the summons, you must have the court enter an order on or before (caveat … as to before, see below) the day noticed for hearing continuing the case to a specific date and time in the future.
Although the COA said that the case must be continued ” … on or before …” the date set in the summons, in my opinion only an agreed order of continuance dated before the summons date would be effective. If you unilaterally reset the case by order before the date set in the original summons, you are depriving the defendant of notice and the opportunity to defend.
As long as Dennis was in the status of a petitioner (plaintiff) who had invoked the court’s jurisdiction, he was entitled only to MRCP 5 notice; after he lost his petitioner status, he became entitled to the protection of Rule 81 notice.

As a practice matter, if you were Patricia’s lawyer, you could have avoided most of the above problems had you seen to it yourself that proper continuance orders and notices to the opposing side were presented to the judge and entered in a timely fashion. It’s your case, after all, and judges and court administrators have lots on their respective plates. As I’ve said before, judges and court personnel do their best, but the bottom line is that they are not responsible for the proper handling of your case; you are.

WHEN YOU’RE ANGRY, STEP AWAY FROM YOUR WORD PROCESSOR, COUNT TO 10 SLOWLY, TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND EXHALE SLOWLY

May 23, 2012 § 4 Comments

Sometimes you get so boiling mad when you’re served with outrageous pleadings, or you get an exorbitant discovery dump, or opposing counsel is a jackass, or the judge rules against you and you know — just know it deep down in your aching heart that the ignorant so-and-so did not even look at the cases you gave him and had his mind made up and etc. — or the whole injustice and inequity of it all is so overwhelming, that you sit down at your computer and dash off a rabid response accusing that lawyer and/or the judge of all manner of immoral, unethical, unhealthy, unsavory and illegal misfeasance, malfeasance and faux pas.

Admit it. You’ve done it. Or at the very least dreamed about it. All of us have.

The thing is, most of us then hit the “delete” button, or tear up the paper and wait until reason returns, or smile at the mental imagery and shrug it off.

What happens, though, when you get carried away and don’t find a way to stop yourself from doing something over the top?

The latest example is in Berryman v. Lannom, decided by the COA on May 22, 2012. In that case, the chancellor ruled that the Berrymans had let the statute of limitations expire before filing their wrongful death claim, so she denied their claim to a portion of wrongful death proceeds that had been interpled in chancery court. Then she ruled that their version of the court proceedings offered pursuant to MRAP 10 — because the case was tried without a verbatim record — was not accurate, and accepted the other party’s version of the facts. To cap things off, the Lannoms’ attorneys presented the clerk with the court’s order the very day it was entered and got their interpled funds, all that was there.

Obviously perturbed at the way things had gone, the Berrymans appealed. Although the COA decision does not recite exactly what the appellants charged in their briefs, it does say this:

“¶9. The Berrymans argue the chancellor erred both by denying them any portion of the interpleaded funds and by denying their motion to stay disbursement of the funds to [the Lannoms] pending appeal. They also argue [the Lannom’s] attorneys violated the ten-day automatic stay of judgment by presenting the order of disbursement to the chancery clerk the same day as the hearing.

“¶10. The Berrymans further assert the attorneys’ actions violated ethical rules, meriting sanctions. We find this allegation to be wholly baseless and focus our opinion solely on whether a reversible procedural error was committed. The Berrymans also describe the chancellor’s decision to deny their motion to stay as “a perversion of the administration of justice” and request we appoint a new chancellor on remand because Chancellor Vicki Cobb abdicated her role as “officer of a court of law and equity.” Because this last argument—which has no support in the record—shows disrespect for the chancellor, we sua sponte strike this argument and its contemptuous language from the Berrymans’ brief. M.R.A.P. 28(k). We focus solely on whether the chancellor erroneously applied the law or was manifestly wrong. See McNeil, 753 So. 2d at 1063 (¶21).” [Emphasis added]

Contemptuous language, indeed. Charging a lawyer with ethical violations and a chancellor with abdication of her role as officer of a court of law and equity are serious allegations that you’d better be prepared to back up with evidence, and I mean strong evidence. It’s like pointing a gun at someone who you think is out to do you harm; you’d better be right, and you’d better be sure sure the gun is loaded, and you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger, or you will be the one who gets it. The courts do not consider charges like those to be trivial, and you should never toss them around without a firm basis in fact. If you do, you will be the one who comes off looking unethical and outside the bounds of law and equity. Why would you think that your clients would want their interests to be represented by someone that out of control?

MRAP 28(k) allows the appellate courts to strike any disrespectful language from briefs and even empowers the court to “take such further action as it may deem proper.”

MRCP 12 (f) permits the trial court on motion of any party or on the court’s own initiative, to strike any and all “immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”

MRCP 11(b) provides that the trial court can sanction an attorney for filing papers that include scandalous or indecent matter, or are filed for the purpose of harassment or delay. The sanctions include reasonable attorney’s fees.

UCCR 1.01 specifically states that “The dignity and respect of the court shall be preserved at all times.”

Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 3.5 prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.

RPC 8.2 (a) says that “A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge … “

The preamble to the RPC includes this language: “A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes, and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers, and public officials. While it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.”

Lawyers make a living on controversy and conflict. But you are there to help your client find a way through it to a better place, not to make it worse. Don’t hit the print button until reason returns. And if you just can’t help yourself, print it and trash it. You owe it to yourself and your client.

BLUEWATER BACKSPLASH

April 3, 2012 § 3 Comments

The MSSC decision in Bluewater Logistics v. Williford, 55 So.3d 148 (Miss. 2011), is notable for several reasons. First, it’s of value to lawyers who litigate over LLC’s and contracts as a guide to the parameters of litigation in that field. Second, it spelled the demise of the “heightened scrutiny” and “lessened deference” rules formerly applied when judges adopt verbatim one side’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; a post in which I touched on that point is here.

To me, though, the most potentially far-reaching impact of Bluewater is its treatment of the pleadings and the scope of relief granted by the trial judge. The COA had reversed, ruling that the chancellor had impermissibly gone beyond the scope of the pleadings. The COA decision rested on three 19th-century cases.

The MSSC granted cert and the Bluewater appellants argued to the high court that the COA was correct because Williford’s complaint had sought only injunctive relief in the form of reinstatement as a member of the LLC, and that, as a result, the chancellor was in error in awarding him equitable relief in the form of a judgment for the value of his interest in the LLC. Here’s what Justice Dickinson, writing for the majority, said, beginning at page 157:

¶ 35. Mississippi has been a “notice pleading” state since January 1, 1982, when we adopted the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. [citation omitted] Under Rule 8, a complaint need only contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and “a demand for judgment.” [citation omitted] “No technical forms of pleading or motions are required.” [citation omitted] Moreover, “[a]ll pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.” [citation omitted] Rule 54(c) states that every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled by the proof and which is within the jurisdiction of the court to grant, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings …. ” [citation omitted]

¶ 36. Our decisions have reflected the shift from older forms of “code pleading” to the Rules’ “notice pleading” paradigm. In Pilgrim Rest Missionary Baptist Church v. Wallace, we stated “it is axiomatic that the relief need not be limited in kind or amount by the demand but may include relief not requested in the complaint.” [citation omitted] And in Turner [Turner v. Terry, 799 So.2d 25, 39 (Miss.2001)], we stated: “A trial judge may award a party any relief to which he is entitled, even if the party fails to make a specific demand for such.” [citation omitted]

¶ 37. In holding that the chancellor erred in granting Williford money damages, the Court of Appeals inexplicably relied on three pre–rules cases, two of which date to the 1850s. [citation omitted] We now overrule Barnes, French, and Tucker to the extent that they conflict with the requirements and provisions of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and subsequent decisions of this Court.

¶ 38. We hold that Williford’s complaint was clearly sufficient to support an award of monetary damages. The complaint is titled “Complaint for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and Damages.” The opening paragraph stated that Williford was seeking damages. Paragraph 5 alleged the ouster was unlawful, “warranting equitable and monetary relief.” Count I of the complaint was titled “Breach of Contract” and alleged breach of contract, for which the remedy is compensatory damages. In Count III, titled “Violation of the Mississippi Limited Liability Company Act,” Williford asserted “all rights and remedies available under the applicable statute, Miss.Code Ann. § [79–29–101], et seq.” [citation omitted] Under the section titled “Damages and Relief Sought,” Williford sought (among other things) compensatory damages, an accounting of all company assets, an appraisal of the fair-market value of his share of the company, and “any other relief to which he may be entitled.”

¶ 39. Viewed as a whole, we cannot say the chancellor was in error by finding that the complaint was sufficient to put Bluewater on notice that Williford was seeking monetary relief. Accordingly, Defendants’ argument that the chancellor granted Williford relief that was beyond the scope of the pleadings is without merit.

One of those 19th-century cases reversed by the court Terry v. Jones, was referred to by me in a prior post to emphasize that pleadings are not proof.

It remains to be seen how far the courts will go in applying the pleadings aspects of Bluewater. If the decision is limited to the underlying facts, then it should not be too earthshaking because the pleadings arguably did invoke the remedies that the trial court applied. If, however, the decision is taken to mean that notice pleadings require only notice of subject matter jurisdiction, thereby opening the door to all species of relief available thereunder, then your practice of chancery law may change dramatically.

Or maybe not. It has long been the law in Mississippi that in granting equitable relief the chancellor may order all relief necessary to effect an equitable remedy, whether pled for or not. For instance, in awarding lump sum alimony the chancellor may impose an equitable lien on real propterty to secure the payment. Or, where custody is sought, the judge may order the noncustodial parent to pay child support even where it was not sought. So perhaps Bluewater is not so much a dramatic shift in the tide as it is a mere ripple on the pond.

FYI, the Bluewater holding also calls into question a prior post of mine in which I stressed that you have to ask for specific relief in your pleadings if you expect to get it.

I encourage you to read the Bluewater decision carefully to get a handle on how it can help or hurt you. You will likely come up with ways to argue it to your advantage.

Where Am I?