Practice and Procedure | The Better Chancery Practice Blog

JUDGE CARLTON’S PRIMER ON ADVERSE POSSESSION

March 28, 2012 § 1 Comment

To establish adverse possession requires proof by clear and convincing evidence of some rather elusive concepts established by the courts to interpret and apply MCA § 15-1-13. That’s why, whenever I find an exposition on the applicable law, I’m quick to share it so that you can use it.

The most recent useful primer on the subject is Judge Carlton’s opinion in the COA case of Greenwood v. Young, decided February 7, 2012. I’ve stripped out the law to provide you with a skinny you may want to add to your trial notebooks:

¶19. Mississippi Code Annotated section 15-1-13(1) governs claims of adverse possession, providing in part:

“Ten (10) years’ actual adverse possession by any person claiming to be the owner for that time of any land, uninterruptedly continued for ten (10) years by occupancy, descent, conveyance, or otherwise, in whatever way such occupancy may have commenced or continued, shall vest in every actual occupant or possessor of such land a full and complete title, saving to persons under the disability of minority or unsoundness of mind the right to sue within ten (10) years after the removal of such disability, as provided in Section 15-1-7. However, the saving in favor of persons under disability of unsoundness of mind shall never extend longer than thirty-one (31) years.

In order to establish a claim of adverse possession, the party claiming to have adversely possessed the property must show, by clear-and-convincing evidence, that his possession was (1) under a claim of right or ownership; (2) actual or hostile; (3) open, notorious, and visible; (4) continuous and uninterrupted for a period of ten years; (5) exclusive; and (6) peaceful. Pulliam v. Bowen, 54 So. 3d, 331, 334 (¶13) (citations omitted).

The factors:

Claim of Ownership. ¶21. “In the end, the ultimate question is whether the possessory acts relied upon by the would be adverse possessor are sufficient to fly his flag over the lands and to put the record title holder on notice that the lands are held under an adverse claim of ownership.” Hill v. Johnson, 27 So. 3d 426, 431 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (citations omitted).

Actual or Hostile. ¶23. “The actual or hostile occupation of land necessary to constitute adverse possession requires a corporeal occupation, accompanied by a manifest intention to hold and continue to hold the property against the claim of all other persons, and adverse to the rights of the true owner.” Hill, 27 So. 3d at 431-32 (¶23).

Open, Notorious, and Visible. ¶26. “The mere possession of land is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the adverse possessor’s use be open, notorious, and visible.” Webb v. Drewrey, 4 So. 3d 1078, 1083 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (citation omitted). An adverse-possession claim will not begin “unless the landowner has actual or constructive knowledge that there is an adverse claim against his property.” Id. “An adverse possessor ‘must unfurl his flag on the land, and keep it flying, so that the (actual) owner may see, and if he will, [know] that an enemy has invaded his domains, and planted the standard of conquest.’” Id.

Continuous and Uninterrupted for Ten Years.

Exclusive. ¶29. “Exclusivity, within the meaning of the statute, means that the adverse possessor’s use of the property was consistent with an exclusive claim to the right to use the property.” Hill, 27 So. 3d at 432 (¶27). “Exclusive use is at the most basic level the intent of actual and hostile possession.” Id. “To satisfy the element of exclusivity, ‘the claimant’s conduct must afford an unequivocal indication that he is exercising dominion of a sole owner.’” Stone v. Lea Brent Family Invs., L.P., 998 So. 2d 448, 455 (¶25) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (citations omitted). “Exclusive use” does not mean that no one else uses the property. Id. “Rather, exclusive use indicates a right to use the land above other members of the general public.” Id.

Peaceful. ¶30. The adverse possession must be peaceful. Jordan v. Fountain, 986 So. 2d 1018, 1023 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). “The mere existence of a dispute over the use of land does not present an obstacle to satisfy the element of peaceful use.” Hill, 27 So. 3d at 432 (¶29). “Simple disputes often arise between neighboring landowners, but do not rise to the level of destroying the peaceful existence between them.” Id.

Clear and Convinving Evidence. The mere fact that there is contradictory evidence does not mean that the credible evidence is not clear and convincing. See, Stancil v. Farris, 60 So. 3d 817, 824 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) “If clear[-]and[-]convincing evidence could never be shown in the presence of contradictory testimonies, virtually no case requiring a showing by clear and convincing evidence could be proven. Such is clearly not the case.”

You should read the opinion carefully to see how the chancellor applied the law to the facs, and how the COA viewed the chancellor’s ruling. Your case may be distinguishable.

Another adverse possession post highlighting a COA ruling by Judge Roberts is here.

You can find an annotated checklist of adverse possession factors by following the link.

The latest COA case on adverse possession is Massey v. Lambert, decided March 27, 2012, in which the court upheld the chancellor’s ruling that the use of the property had been permissive, which defeats a claim of adverse possession.

CONTEMPT OF CLERK

March 27, 2012 § 12 Comments

Not too long ago I pointed out to a young, out-of-district lawyer that the lawyer had failed to get the chancery clerk to mail a copy of the publication summons to the defendant’s last-known address and note the fact on the docket, and that I could not sign the judgment until that requirement had been met.

Later, in the clerk’s office, I was told to my chagrin that the lawyer had entered in a huff, tossed the process on the counter, and said “The judge said that y’all messed up and didn’t send the process to the defendant.” The unhappy barrister complained that about a wasted trip from [somewhere far away to the west], and demanded that the clerk send the process by certified mail immediately, and then left in a cloud of dust, no doubt headed back to the more rarified and privileged atmosphere from whence that poor soul had descended into what I am sure the lawyer considered to be our little backwater corner of legal hell.

Not to be too picky — or prickly — but I never told that lawyer that the clerk had messed up. Nor did I instruct counsel to have the process mailed by certified mail (which the poor clerk did anyway at her own expense … Rule 4 only requires regular mail). And I certainly did not suggest to the lawyer to blame it all on the clerks, or even that the clerks were to blame at all.

This unfortunate episode illustrates what that sage chancellor, Frank McKenzie of Laurel, aptly characterizes as “Contempt of clerk.” It’s conduct that I’ve described here before.

Let’s face it: the chancery clerk is in a unique position to make your job as a lawyer enjoyably easy at one extreme or excruciatingly painful at the other, with myriad shades of gray in between. You get to choose how you get treated by how you deal with the clerks.

In this particular case, when the lawyer filed the process, the lawyer should have made a simple request of the clerk to mail the process, and should have provided a copy for the clerk to do so, and should have asked the clerk (politely) to do it right then so that she could watch the entry being made on the docket. And should have done so politely.

Now, you may ask “Why should the lawyer take responsibility to do that when MRCP 4 clearly says that the clerk is the one who shall mail, etc.” Well, there are several considerations that come into play:

You may look high and low in the rules, and you will find no penalty for the clerk failing to mail the publication; on the other hand, you and your client pay the price if you do not see that it is done.
You, not the clerk, are responsible for the proper handling and processing of your case.
As a practical matter, how are the clerks to know that this needs to be done in a given case unless you tell them? Chancery clerks are busy handling hundreds of transactions, many of which involve minute details, and you are merely one more customer among many, many. No matter how important you think that you and your case are, every other customer feels exactly the same way.
The easier you make the clerk’s job, the more likely it is that it will be done to your satisfaction.

Part of making the clerk’s job easier is human relations. It doesn’t take much sense to realize that a pompous, arrogant, demanding jackass will experience a certain level of customer service, and a polite, cooperative, prepared professional will have an entirely different experience. Vinegar vs. honey.

In my opinion, there is never a reason to treat clerks in a demeaning or rude fashion. Ever. For one thing, they are in a demanding job and they are doing the best they can do. For another, they are an important arm of the courts, and they deserve the same respect from you as a professional that you show to all other court personnel.

The penalty for contempt of clerk can be drastic. Would you rather get a call the day after you mailed that complaint telling you that you had neglected to enclose a check for court costs, or would you rather find out six weeks later that your pleadings have been setting on a desk awaiting your check? I’m not saying that a clerk would be so unprofessional as to do something like that intentionally, but with scarce resources, clerks have to triage matters, and, human nature being what it is, butterflies draw more favorable attention than dung beetles.

AN OBJECT LESSON IN HOW NOT TO HANDLE A GUARDIANSHIP

March 26, 2012 § 6 Comments

I try not to comment on pending litigation, but the ongoing saga of attorney (for the moment) Michael J. Brown of Jackson bears mentioning here as an object lesson for all of you who handle guardianship — and any other fiduciary — matters.

To catch you up … Mr. Brown opened a guardianship for Demon McClinton, a child who had inherited $3 million from his mother, Rebecca Henry. Ms. Henry was the daughter of late Mississippi civil rights icon Aaron Henry. Attorney Brown never opened a guardianship account, depositing the funds instead in his trust account. To make a long, sordid story short, the funds were bled dry by unauthorized disbursements, extremely questionable “investments,” so-called “loans” — including “loans to himself — and outragous attorney’s fees. You can read a recap of the special master’s report here.

Brown’s misconduct drew the attention of Chancellor Dewayne Thomas. Brown at first claimed that the file, which he had checked out of the clerk’s office, had been destroyed when a pipe burst at his office. This proved to be a perjurious lie when the Special Master, acting pursuant to a search warrant, found the file in the attic of Brown’s home in a box marked “McClinton.”

At a show-cause hearing, Brown tried to assert that his schemes had been approved verbally by a preceding chancellor. Of course, Chancellor Thomas rejected that claim and ordered Brown to limit himself to to what was of record, which clearly established that none of Brown’s many transactions had been approved by any chancellor. Brown testified that there were no funds actually missing because he had accounted for every unauthorized expenditure, “loan,” “investment” and other impropriety. In other words, they aren’t missing because we know their whereabouts.

Chancellor Thomas has ordered the soon-to-be erstwhile lawyer jailed, subject to $250,000 bond, until he restores the missing funds. You can read more about Mr. Brown’s epic mishandling of this case on Philip Thomas’s blog, which includes links to other articles on the subject. An article that includes Judge Thomas’s order is here.

Several years ago I ordered a lawyer and guardian to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for mishandling guardianship funds to the tune of $45,000. The lawyer had handed the settlement check to the guardian, allowed the guardian to go by himself to open a restricted guardianship account, but the guardian deposited the funds instead in his own credit union account. No accountings were filed for several years, even after my predecessor, and then I, ordered that they be done. The lawyer at the hearing disclaimed any responsibility, shucking all the blame off on the guardian. I did not buy it. UCCR 6.01 and 6.02, and MCA § 93-7-253, along with practically all of the Rules of Professional Responsibility, persuade me to the contrary. The lawyer has a duty to the court to ensure that the fiduciary is faithful in carrying out his responsibilities.

Let me restate that: The lawyer has an ethical and professional duty to the court to ensure that the fiduciary is faithful in carrying out his responsibilities.

As the chancellor is the superior guardian of the ward, the lawyer is the arm and officer of the court, charged with the professional responsibility to act as the court’s agent to make sure that the fiduciary is acting solely in the best interest of and for benefit of the ward.

For the umpteenth time, I urge you to pull every fiduciary file you have right now and start poring through them to make sure that every detail is in order. There should be no discrepancies, no questionable transactions, no unapproved withdrawals. Your accountings should be annual, with proper vouchers. If Mr. Brown’s experience still does not shake you out of your lethargy, re-read this post about the hair-raising Matthews v. Williams case. If you’re not willing to strap on the high level of responsibility and vigilance required in fiduciary matters, defer the case to an attorney who will.

As Phillip Thomas so eloquently put it on his blog:

“Any lawyer who has ever walked past the chancery courthouse knows that Brown’s story is complete and total B.S. Chancellors are sticklers for the rules and they want guardianship funds locked up tight. The suggestion that any chancellor would verbally approve bogus sounding investments and loans is preposterous, as is every other detail of Brown’s story. It is beyond preposterous.” [Emphasis in italics added by me]

If you’re not the altruistic type, or you don’t buy into the idealistic concepts of professional responsibility, then look to your own self interest and tighten up your fiduciary practice. It could save you a load of money — and possibly your license to practice law.

HOW TO WASTE A TRIP TO THE COA

March 21, 2012 § 3 Comments

We’ve talked here before about the futility of filing an appeal from a judgment that disposes of fewer than all of the issues that were pled and tried, and does not include an MRCP 54(b) certification.

The latest manifestation of the principle appeared in the COA case of Williams v. Claiborne County School District, et al., decided February 21, 2012. In that case, the school district complained in its cross-appeal that the trial judge erred by not granting it the $120,000 in damages it had asked for in its pleadings. Indeed, the chancellor did not even address the issue of damages.

Oops. On its own initiative (after having been alerted by the cross-appeal), the COA dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal because the judgment disposed of fewer than all the issues, and did not include an MRCP 54(b) certification by the judge, meaning that it was not a final, appealable judgment.

Another wasted trip to the COA. Think of those long, lonesome, solitary (albeit billable) hours working on briefs and record excerpts, on reply and rebuttal briefs, on research. Think of what the clients will say when they get the bills for all that time spent to produce nothing but a return to the starting line. Ouch.

As I’ve said before, if you feel that the judge has not addressed an issue so that you don’t have a final judgment, or if you’re in doubt about it, file a timely MRCP 59 or 60 motion and raise the point so that the judge can either (a) address the missing issue, or (b) schedule a trial on the missing point, or (c) amend the judgment to add a 54(b) certification.

THE HIGH PRICE OF A LITIGATION MISFIRE

March 19, 2012 § Leave a comment

Litigation Misfire. (noun): 1. Litigation that fails to ignite at the proper point 2. A case that blows up in one’s face. 3. Any case in which none or few of the positive points your client told you about her case ever materializes at trial.

We’ve all had our misfires. No need to catalog them here. Some misfires happen despite your best efforts and most professional approach to the case. Others are the direct result of a lawyer’s failure to do his homework. When the misfire falls in the latter category, it can dearly cost your client, or you, or both of you. The cost of a misfire can be a daunting thing.

In the COA case of McKnight v. Jenkins, decided March 13, 2012, the tab came to $23,969.17. Here is what Judge Lee’s opinion said, beginning at ¶ 14:

“The chancellor ordered Holly to pay $19,956.67 in Walter’s attorneys’ fees and $4,012.50 in GAL fees. The chancellor found Walter’s attorneys’ fees had been incurred for his defense of the abuse and contempt allegations. The chancellor found sanctions would be appropriate due to Holly’s unsubstantiated slander of the chancellor who had previously been involved in the case; however, the chancellor did not attribute a specific amount of his award as sanctions. In regard to the contempt action, “[a] chancellor is justified in awarding attorney’s fees that are incurred in pursuing a contempt motion.” Elliott v. Rogers, 775 So. 2d 1285, 1290 (¶25) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). In regard to Walter’s defense of the abuse allegations, the chancellor relied upon Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-23 (Supp. 2011), which requires a party alleging child abuse to pay court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the defending party if the allegations are found to be without merit. The chancellor found, pursuant to McKee v. McKee, 418 So. 2d 764 (Miss. 1982), the attorneys’ fees incurred by Walter were reasonable and necessary. We can find no abuse of discretion by the chancellor in awarding Walter attorneys’ fees.

¶15. In regard to the GAL fees, the chancellor determined Holly’s unfounded abuse allegations were the reason he appointed a GAL; thus, the chancellor contended Holly should be responsible for the GAL’s fees. Section 93-5-23 also requires the party alleging child abuse to pay court costs in addition to attorneys’ fees. GAL fees have been considered court costs. Foster v. Foster, 788 So. 2d 779, 782 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). Thus, it was proper for the chancellor to order Holly to pay the GAL fees.”

You can add to the ouch factor in this case the fact that Holly was unemployed at the time she was assessed these fees and costs. It matters not what her ability to pay is when the fees are assessed for contempt.

It goes without saying, or should, that you need to investigate the claims that your client brings to you, no matter how tempting that cash retainer looks. MRCP 11(a) specifically says that when the attorney signs the pleading as required:

The signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate that the attorney has read the pleading or motion; that to the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.

Those words are there for a reason. They impose an important and serious duty on you as an officer of the court not to burden the courts, opposing parties and counsel with frivolous or unfounded matters, to limit your pleadings only to those that genuinely state a cause of action, and to do your homework before you ever set the wheels of the courts in motion.

The payback for not complying with MRCP 11(a) is set out in MRCP 11(b). It’s interesting reading, and I won’t spoil the surprise for you by repeating it here, but you really should read it for yourself and not hear it for the first time from the bench. On March 15, 2012, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld 11(b) sanctions in a case out of Rankin County, In Re Guardianship of B.A.D., which reversed and remanded on other grounds. You should read that case for its exposition of what it is like to face the wrath of a chancellor.

Don’t overlook Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Professional conduct, which requires you to act as an advisor to your client. As I have said here many times, you are not a mere clerk-typist for your client. Nor are you merely your client’s robotic alter ego. You are an independent professional whose highest duty is to advise. As a wise man once said, “About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists of telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.”

MCA § 93-5-23 states “If, after investigation by the Department of Human Services or final disposition by the youth court or family court allegations of abuse are found to be without foundation, the chancery court shall order the alleging party to pay all court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the defending party in response to such allegations.” The chancellor in McKnight could possibly have relied on that section, since he found the allegations to have been without foundation. I have taken the position that all of the elements of the statute have to be present in order to require the imposition of sanctions; i.e., there must be an investigation by DHS or final disposition by a youth court or family court, with a finding that the charges are without foundation. I refused to impose the statutory sanctions in a case where DHS found that the charges could not be substantiated because, by the time they investigated, the bruises on the child were too faded to make a clear finding. The fact that there were bruises convinced me that the charges were not “without foundation” within the meaning of the law, and DHS did not say they were without foundation. To me, sanctions should be carefully limited to appropriate cases so as to avoid a chilling effect on family members, neighbors, doctors, school officials and others who are in a position to report and perhaps put a stop to child abuse.

The Litigation Accountability Act, MCA 11-55-1, et seq. is something else to watch out for. It provides a cause of action against an attorney or party for meritless action, claim or defense, or for unwarranted delay or for “unnecessary proceedings.”

A caveat … the fact that I personally set a high threshhold for sanctions should not lead you to relax your standards. Professionalism demands it. And as a practical matter, your judge may see sanctions differently. I once saw a judge pop a lawyer, not her client, with a $1,500 sanction for failure to answer interrogatories after being ordered to do so. And I myself even assessed more than $20,000 in a case that had been tried by my predecessor, and which was reversed and remanded on a finding of no jurisdiction; the case law is clear that to pursue a case where there is no jurisdiction after you were put on notice is sanctionable, even where the chancellor allowed you to proceed to final judgment.

In my opinion, all sanctions should be judiciously weighed and never lightly imposed. Some lawyers seem to add requests for sanctions to almost every pleading they file, although those requests are, wisely, seldom presented for adjudication. Seems to me that the old saw, “what goes around comes around,” has particularly apt application to this subject.

AN MRCP 56 CAUTION

March 14, 2012 § Leave a comment

The first thing you should do when confronted with a motion for summary judgment is to read the rule. I know, I know, you’re busy and it takes time, but for Pete’s sake, it might just save you some trouble and embarassment, and it might save your malpractice carrier some $$$.

In the COA case of Estate of Farr v. Wirick, decided February 21, 2112, the trial judge excluded from evidence two affidavits that were submitted on the day of hearing. The COA ruled that ” … the chancery court properly excluded the cerificates under [MRCP] Rule 56(c), which requires that affidavits in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must be served ‘prior to the day of the hearing’.”

You have at least ten days’ notice of a motion for summary judgment per MRCP 56(c), and you must file your counteraffidavits prior to the day of the hearing.

So what do you do if you can’t scrape together counteraffidvits in time? MRCP 56(f) allows the court to grant additional time to obtain them, or to grant a continuance to do additional discovery, or to “make such order as is just.” The court can also simply refuse the application for summary judgment.

You can also ask the judge, per MRCP 56(e) for leave to supplement your affidavits or to submit further affidavits.

And don’t overlook this crucial language at MRCP 56(e):

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him. [Emphasis added]

MAKING CHILD SUPPORT RETROACTIVE

March 13, 2012 § Leave a comment

Until 1991, the only way to get child support for a period predating your judgment was under MCA § 93-9-11, which allows the court to assess past education and necessary support and maintenance for a child for “one (1) year next preceding the commencement of an action” of paternity.

That changed with the case of Lawrence v. Lawrence, 574 So.2d 1376, 1384 (Miss. 1991), which held that the chancellor may make an upward modification of child support effective as of the date of filing of the pleading seeking modification. Downward modification is effective as of the date of the judgment of modification.

In the case of Strong v. Strong, 981 So.2d 1052, 1054-55 (Miss.App. 2008), the parties entered into a consent for divorce on the sole ground of irreconcilable differences and submitted the following matters for adjudication by the court:

“The parties submit all other issues relating to the extent of the Husband’s visitation with the children, child support, the existence of temporary child support arrearage, health insurance coverage for the children, payment of medical expenses not covered by insurance, life insurance with the children as beneficiaries, claiming the children as dependants for tax purposes, payments of college expenses; and all other related child visitation and support issues to the Court for adjudication.” [Emphasis added]

The court of appeals held that language adequate to uphold the chancellor’s decision to award temporary child support for the twelve months preceding the temporary order in the case, where the payor did not object to presentation of proof on the point. The court said:

“¶ 13. In order to obtain child support, it must be requested in the pleadings or be tried by the consent of the parties. Lee v. Stewart, 724 So.2d 1093, 1095-96 (¶¶ 3-4) (Miss.Ct.App.1998). Lee is instructive to this particular case. There, the chancellor awarded one year of past-due support even though the issue was never raised in the original or amended complaints. Id. at 1095(¶ 3). This Court held that since Lee failed to make a contemporaneous objection when the evidence was introduced on the issue at trial, the issue was tried with Lee’s implied consent. Id. at 1096(¶ 4) (citing Atkinson v. Nat’l Bank of Commerce of Miss., 530 So.2d 163, 166 n. 2 (Miss.1988)).”

It is interesting that both Strong and Lee turn on either a pleading for relief or trial of the issue without objection. The clear implication is that if you include a prayer in your pleading for past child support, it will open the door to that relief by the court.

Whether to grant retroactivity is discretionary with the court. Weeks v. Weeks, 29 So.3d 80, 89 (Miss. App. 2009). I take the position that you must include a specific request for retroactivity in your pleading, or I will not grant it. My rationale is that you are trying to take money (i.e., property) from the other party, and that requires due process under the Fifth Amendment, which in turn requires adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.

PARTITION: BY SALE OR IN KIND?

February 29, 2012 § 5 Comments

Partition is the legal mechanism in Mississippi for dividing joint owners’ interests in real property when they can not otherwise agree to do so. The partition statute is MCA § 11-21-1, et seq.

It seems from where I sit that almost all partition cases come before the court with near-unanimous agreement among the parties that, if the property must be divided, sale will be the most advantageous method.

Even in contested cases, the prevailing view appears to be that the property should be divided by sale. That is not the law in Mississippi, however. Partition in kind is the favored method of division.

In the case of Fuller v. Chimento, 824 So.2d 599, 601-2 (Miss. 2002), the Mississippi Supreme Court laid out the law on the subject:

A partition in kind is the preferred method of partition of property under Mississippi law. Overstreet v. Overstreet, 692 So.2d 88, 91 (Miss.1997); Shaw v. Shaw, 603 So.2d 287, 290 (Miss.1992); Unknown Heirs at Law of Blair v. Blair, 601 So.2d 848, 850 (Miss.1992); Monaghan v. Wagner, 487 So.2d 815, 820 (Miss.1986); Bailey v. Vaughn, 375 So.2d 1054, 1057 (Miss.1979); Mathis v. Quick, 271 So.2d 924, 926 (Miss.1973); Dailey v. Houston, 246 Miss. 667, 151 So.2d 919, 926 (1963); Carter v. Ford, 241 Miss. 511, 130 So.2d 852, 854 (1961); Blake v. St. Catherine Gravel Co., 218 Miss. 713, 67 So.2d 712, 714 (1953); Hilbun v. Hilbun, 134 Miss. 235, 98 So. 593, 594 (1924); Shorter v. Lesser, 98 Miss. 706, 54 So. 155, 156 (1911); Smith v. Stansel, 93 Miss. 69, 46 So. 538, 539 (1908). See also 7 Jeffrey Jackson & Mary Miller, Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law § 60:99, at 56 (2001).

The propriety of a partition sale or partition in kind is determined on a case-by-case basis. Wight v. Ingram-Day Lumber Co., 195 Miss. 823, 17 So.2d 196, 197 (1944). To justify a partition by sale, the party seeking the sale must bring his case squarely within Miss. Code Ann. § 11-21-11 (Supp.2001) which states in pertinent part that

If, upon hearing, the court be of the opinion that a sale of the lands, or any part thereof, will better promote the interest of all parties than a partition in kind, or if the court be satisfied that an equal division cannot be made, it shall order a sale of the lands, or such part thereof as may be deemed proper, and a division of the proceeds among the cotenants according to their respective interests.

The use of the conjunction “or” in this statutory scheme provides for a two-prong inquiry into the propriety of a partition sale. A partition sale can be had if it will (1) “better promote the interest of all parties than a partition in kind” or (2) “if the court be satisfied that an equal division [of the land] cannot be made.” Id. See Blair, 601 So.2d at 850. See also Dantone v. Dantone, 205 Miss. 420, 38 So.2d 908, 911 (1949); Cox v. Kyle, 75 Miss. 667, 23 So. 518, 519 (1898). “Affirmative proof of at least one of these statutory requirements must affirmatively appear in the record in order for the court to decree a partition by sale.” Blair, 601 So.2d at 850. Furthermore, a court has no right to divest a cotenant landowner of title to his property by sale over his protest unless these conditions are fully met. Shorter, 54 So. at 156.

The joint owner seeking a partition sale has the burden of proving that the land is not susceptible of partition in kind and that a sale is the only feasible method of division. Overstreet, 692 So.2d at 90-91; Hogue v. Armstrong, 159 Miss. 875, 132 So. 446, 448 (1931).

It is permissible for the court to order partition by sale as to one parcel, and partition in kind as to another. The court’s action has to be supported by the requisite proof. I urge you to read the cases to get a feel for exactly what it is you need to prove.

When you have a partition suit and your client or the other party is objecting to a division in kind, you should expect your position to fail if you do not provide adequate evidence. If you want a sale, you must put on proof how sale will better promote the interests of the parties or that the property can not be equally divided in kind. The party wanting a sale has the burden of proof. If the party wanting a sale has met his burden of proof and you want division in kind, you must put on proof contradicting that of the party wanting a sale.

WRITING YOUR WAY TO A WIN

February 28, 2012 § 12 Comments

Imagine you have concluded a grinding trial in a hotly contested case. The chancellor turns to you and says, “You write the opinion. Stick to the facts in the record, recite the applicable law, analyze the factors, and rule in your client’s favor.” After pinching yourself to make sure you’re not dreaming, you’d jump at the chance, wouldn’t you?

There is actually a tool available for you to do that very thing, and, interestingly, few attorneys voluntarily avail themselves of it.

It’s called Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (PFFCL).

Typically when PFFCL are called for, it is at the behest of the judge, and more often than not they are called for in complex cases. But there is no good reason why a lawyer may not request it, and there is no good reason to limit its application to complex cases only. I can not think of a single type of chancery case where PFFCL would not work.

I have seen good PFFCL and bad. The good read like a trial court opinion that would be affirmed on appeal: findings of fact are supported by evidence in the record; the applicable law is set forth; factors are analyzed and conclusions reached; rulings are set out clearly and distictly, resolving every issue in dispute. The bad are, well, bad: facts are injected that never made it into the trial; the law is inapplicable or misapplied; factors are not addressed, or they are not properly addressed; the rulings have no basis in fact or law.

The traditional rule in Mississippi was that if the trial judge adopted your PFFCL verbatim, the appellate court would give the trial court ruling less deference or subject it to heightened scrutiny. In Rice Researchers v. Hiter, 512 So.2d 1259, 1266 (Miss. 1987), the court said:

In our view, the matter of whether a trial court may adopt verbatim, in whole or in part, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of a party is within the court’s sound discretion. See 54 A.L.R.3d 868, supra. Case complexities and crushing caseloads necessitate substantial reliance upon the submissions of trial counsel. Still, the judge is a judge and not a rubber stamp. He may not be able to afford the luxury of practicing his culinary art a la the Cordon Bleu. He should remember, however, that his oath precludes a McDonald’s approach to the judicial process. Where the trial judge wholly abdicates his judicial responsibilities—where, as it were, he abuses his discretion—we doubtless have authority to intervene. Here the Chancery Court quite properly requested that each party submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. These submissions were considered at an adversary hearing. Thereafter, the Court considered RRI’s motion to amend findings. These steps, coupled with the fact that this case is quite complex (in spite of its simplicity), leave us convinced that the Chancery Court acted within its authority. As indicated above, however, our obligation of appellate deference to such findings is necessarily lessened.

The rule was tossed out only last year in Bluewater Logistics v. Williford, 55 So.3d 148, 157 (Miss. 2011), where the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that it would continue to apply the “familiar abuse-of-discretion standard” to review of chancery court decisions, even where the chancellor adopted one party’s PFFCL verbatim.

My little opening vignette is unrealistic in one sense: the judge will always allow all parties to submit their own PFFCL. But the judge can pick and choose elements of all that were submitted, or simply adopt one, or use them as a template to do his own, or ignore them.

So there you have it. As long as the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and the law is properly applied, the trial court ruling will be upheld. And you can be the one to write it.

A FEW POINTERS ON EXPERTS

February 27, 2012 § 3 Comments

In a few trials lately, I’ve been surprised at the relatively relaxed approach lawyers have taken to identifying the expert witness in discovery, responding to the standard expert witness interrogatories, and even qualifying the expert to testify at trial. If you get lazy with how you present your expert you are inviting error into the record.

Here are a few reminders:

If you are asked in discovery to identify your expert, UCCR 1.10 requires that you must do so not less than 60 days in advance of trial, or you will not be allowed to call the expert.
If you are asked in discovery to provide the information set out in MRCP 26(b)(4)(A)(i) as to the subject matter, ths substance of facts and opinions, and a summary of the grounds for opinions, you must provide a substantial enough answer to give the other side a reasonable idea of what the expert’s opinions will be and what it is that the expert uses as a basis for the opinion. If you do not timely provide that information, the testimony may be excluded, or you may be severely limited by a skimpy answer. This is important, and may be crucial to your case. If you don’t have a system in place to remind you to update and supplement your discovery well in advance of trial, you’d better come up with one for your survival’s sake.
At trial, you must qualify the witness. Here is the process, in a nutshell:
1. Identify the witness.
2. Establish the witness’s knowledge, skill, experience, training and/or education that qualifies her as an expert.
3. Tender the witness as an expert to the court, which will allow the other side to voir dire the witness on qualifications. Remember that you must tender the witness as an expert in a specific field. For example: “I tender the witness as an expert in the field of child psychology and behavioral disorders,” or ” … in the field of surveying,” or ” … in the field of counseling with an emphasis on identifying and treating victims of child abuse and domestic violence,” etc., etc., etc.
4. Address any objections to qualifications.
5. Have the witness testify about the facts and data upon which the opinion will be based. MRE 702(1) requires that the opinion must be based on “sufficient facts or data.”
6. Have the witness establish by testimony the principles and methods she used in arriving at her opinion, and she must establish their reliability.
7. Have the witness testify how she applied those principles and methods in this particular case, and why the method she used does produce reliable results in her field.
8. Develop the expert opinion.
You can find some more detailed information about the process at this earlier post.

It’s your case. Try it as you like, but remember that no matter how satisfactory the outcome at the trial level, it’s only as good in the long run as the record you made.

Where Am I?