THE AFFIDAVIT OF “REASONABLY DILIGENT INQUIRY” FOR CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE

July 25, 2011 § 11 Comments

MCA § 91-7-145(1) requires the estate fiduciary to make “reasonably diligent inquiry” to identify persons who have claims against the estate, and to notify them by mail at their last known address that failure to probate a claim within the statutorily-prescribed time will bar their claims.

MCA § 91-7-145(2) provides that:

“The executor or administrator shall file with the clerk of the court an affidavit stating that such executor or administrator has made reasonably diligent efforts to identify persons having claims against the estate and has given notice by mail … to all persons so identified. Upon filing such affidavit, it shall be the duty of the executor or administrator to publish in some newspaper in the county a notice requiring all persons having claims against the estate to have same probated and registered by the cleerk of the court granting the letters, which notice shall state the time when the letters were granted and that a failure to probate and register within ninety (90) days after the first publication of such notice will bar the claim … ” [Emphasis added]

Most lawyers refer to this as the “Affidavit of Creditors.”

Clearly, then, the statute requires these measures, in this order:

  1. First, identify those having a claim against the estate;
  2. Send them notice conforming to the statute;
  3. File an affidavit with the clerk stating compliance with the statute;
  4. Publish notice to creditors.

Skip a step and you will have to start over. Go out of order and you will have to start over. Notice the language of the statute: it says that publication is undertaken “[u]pon filing such affidavit …” That clearly requires that you may not publish until after the affidavit has been filed. And, of course, the affidavit can not be filed until after you have made diligent inquiry and mailed your notices, if any.

In the case of In re Estate of Petrick, 635 So.2d 1389 (Miss. 1994), the untimely claim of a creditor was allowed because the administratrix published without notifying a creditor whom the court found was “reasonably ascertainable.” The court added that notice may be published only after the affidavit has been filed (at 1394).

In Houston v. Ladner, 911 So.2d 673 (Miss. App. 2005), the COA found the chancellor in error for finding a probated claim time-barred without first finding that the creditor was a reasonably ascertainable creditor. The creditor had not been sent notice by mail, and the COA pointed out that publication notice was not a substitute for mail notice; it was required in addition to mail notice.

Here are a couple of practice tips to help you comply with the statute:

  • Always question your fiduciary about bills of the decedent. It will be hard to argue that BOA Visa was not a “reasonably ascertainable” creditor when your fiduciary had been paying the bill herself for three months after the decedent died and before the estate was opened. It will be harder still to argue that the attending physician at the time of death was not “reasonably ascertainable.”
  • Why not include the required affidavit in your petition to open the estate, or in the fiduciary’s oath, whichever is the appropriate point for you? Maybe by eliminating one extra piece of paper you will be more likely to do it right.

Reminder: MCA § 93-13-38 makes the foregoing provisions applicable to guardianships and conservatorships, as well as estates.

The statutory requirements are technical and mandatory. Read the code and do what it says. Doing so can save you considerable grief down the road.

A COSTLY LESSON IN PSA DRAFTSMANSHIP

July 21, 2011 § 3 Comments

What does this fairly commonplace paragraph from a PSA mean:

School and Extracurricular Expenses. Husband and Wife shall each be responsible for one-half (1/2) of all school and extra-curricular expenses incurred by the minor child including but not limited to the cost of books, activity fees, lab fees, school uniforms, tuition, and sports equipment.

Does that provision refer to private elementary and/or high school? Or does it refer to college? Is the language ambiguous?

In McLeod v. McLeod, decided July 19, 2011, by the COA, those questions were presented squarely to the appellate court.

Judge Griffis wrote the opinion that held the language above to encompass all levels of education, and rejected both the arguments that the language was ambiguous and that private elementary and high school expenses are usually included in child support as the court had held in Southerland v. Southerland, 816 So.2d 1004 (Miss. 2002), and Moses v. Moses, 879 So.2d 1043 (Miss. App. 2004). The opinion distinguished the two cases from the facts in this case. The COA decision is worth a read, and I will not rehash it further here.

The point I want to make is how important it is to be aware of precision in your draftsmanship. It would have been a simple matter for the husband’s attorney to clarify the language to specify that it pertained to college, if that was, in fact, the agreement.

Some PSA’s lack clarity. The meaning is hidden behind a cloud of words. That was not the problem in this COA case, but it’s a common problem nonetheless. You can read some ideas for clearer draftsmanship here.

Mostly, though, it seems that we sometimes get in too much of a hurry. The client may be pressing or you put off tending to it until you had no more time to spare. Haste is the enemy of precision.

Make time to set aside what you have drafted for at least a few hours or a couple of days. Then pick it back up and look at it through fresh eyes. Put yourself in the role of a judge who is reviewing it. You know what you meant to say, but will that judge looking through different eyes see it the same way? Are there more precise words that could be used? Is what you have written susceptible to more than one interpretation? Is there something there that can come back and bite your client?

You want your PSA’s — and everything you draft, including pleadings, contracts, briefs — to say exactly what you mean to say and to promote the best interest of your client. Take your time on draftsmanship. Haste is the enemy of precision.

COA SINKS ANOTHER APPEAL FROM A LESS-THAN-FINAL JUDGMENT

July 20, 2011 § 4 Comments

It was only last month that the COA dispatched two appeals to dismissal-land because they were taken from less-than-final judgments. You can click the link to read about Jackson v. Lowe and S.E.B. v. R.E.B. The underlying principle is, you will recall, that an appeal only lies from a final judgment, and if any issues remain unadjudicated and not addressed as required in MRCP 54(b), your appeal will be dismissed.

The COA once again confronted the issue in R.A.S. Jr., K.S., A.S, V.S. and M.S. v. S.S., rendered July 19, 2011. In that case, the appellant, referred to as “Matt,” had filed a Chancery Court modification action seeking to reduce his $6,900 per month child support. His ex, “Anna,” responded by charging him with molesting one of their children. The charges were nol prossed, and Matt countered with a chancery motion for an accounting of the child support. Later, he filed an amended petition asking to “reform” original decree provisions for child support and custody.

The chancellor held a motion hearing and, without hearing any evidence, ruled from the bench that he was going to leave physical custody and legal custody as they were. He stated, “I’m not here today to decide [the modification issue] … I’m not going to address those motions stoday as to whether or not they meet the legal standard.” The judge later entered an order denying Matt’s request for an accounting, reserving ruling on the modification.

Matt filed a motion for a new trial (Note: in chancery this is a motion for rehearing, traditionally referred to as a motion for reconsideration), and Anna filed a motion for payment of certain expenses provided in the original judgment. The judge overruled Matt’s motion and denied Anna’s motion without addressing certain transportation expenses she had requested.

Matt complained on appeal that the chancellor refused to allow him to present evidence on his modification pleading, instead putting off a hearing so that Anna’s parenting could be monitored. A guardian ad litem had been appointed.

In every one of the chancellor’s rulings cited by the COA, it is clear that the judge was not making a final ruling. The COA said at ¶ 20 that

“The chancellor’s orders here were not final. We fully recognize that child-custody decisions are always subject to modification until the children’s emancipation. And no judgment entered is final in the sense of ending the case until that point. However, that the case involves custody modification does not eliminate the requirement that the chancellor enter a final, appealable judgment. Absent proper Rule 54(b) certification or the supreme court’s permission to proceed on an interlocutory appeal, which are both lacking here, piecemeal appeals are not allowed.

The chancellor clearly deferred ruling on contested issues, which he had not revisited when the parties appealed. Because we find the chancellor did not enter a final, appealable judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”

The court also pointed out that the supreme court has held in Michael v. Michael, 650 S0.2d 469, 471 (Miss. 1995), that parties may not appeal from a temporary order.

From Judge Maxwell’s opinion in this case, it appears that the record was somewhat confused. It may have been confusing to counsel as to exactly what matters were being addressed in which proceedings. I suggest you get a clear understanding with your chancellor either before hearing or when he casts the pleadings at the outset of trial as to what matters will be addressed. If you’re perplexed that the judge won’t address a certain issue at a certain time, try to pin him down on the record as to when, exactly, you can be heard on the issue.

In any event, the COA has once again sent an important message to trial and appellate counsel: If you don’t have a final, appealable judgment, your appeal will be dismissed.

PUBLICATION PROCESS: THE NIGHTMARE CONTINUES

July 18, 2011 § 1 Comment

Thank goodness most, if not all, lawyers are paragons of mental health.  Otherwise they would regularly be reduced to quivering, sobbing hulks curled in a fetal position on the office hook rug, terrorized by the veritable panoply of unseen legal bugaboos that can bite them, sometimes fatally, in the butt.  These legal viruses are not mere phantasms; they infest your files, lurking there invisible like the dust mites that feast on your body while you sleep.  <Shiver>

MRCP 4(c)(4)

I have already warned you about the dangerous propensity of MRCP 4 publication process to devour entire cases whole. It’s a rule that can transform your case from a delightful, playful puppy dog into an undead, zombie-esque creature that will turn on you and try to drink your blood and eat your skin.

Just when you were growing comfortable with your new-found awareness of Rule 4’s parlous proclivities, here comes something else to worry about.

It’s Article 6, §169 of the Mississippi Constitution, which is entitled, “Style of Process.” It states in pertinent part: “The style of all process shall be ‘The State of Mississippi …’ ”

Given the fact that the MSSC and COA have strictly interpreted Rule 4 as it applies to publication, I think you would be wise to look at your process forms and make sure that every one includes THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. Look at MRCP Forms 1C, 1D and 1DD. Notice that each includes the style of the case, which includes the court, county and state, and the language THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. Redundant? Perhaps. An additional line you have to pay for? Absolutely. Necessary? You bet; it’s required by our state constitution!

Chancellor George Warner consistently found process inadequate that did not include the requisite language. Over the years, we have grown less vigilant, and now you can find process in the newspaper that lacks the proper style. I predict that someone will raise this point on appeal and that the appellate court will say, “Sorry, you goofed up and violated the Mississippi Constitution; your process is no good, the court had no jurisdiction, and this case is reversed.”

Now uncurl yourself from that fetal ball, brush yourself off, and start fixing your forms. THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. Add the words in where they belong. Take pride in the fact that you have avoided being a victim of this peril. And rest easy for now … until the next legal plague that will try to drink your blood and eat your skin.

                                                

Thanks to attorney Leonard Cobb.

“A PERILOUS MISTAKE” IN HANDLING FIDUCIARY MATTERS

July 11, 2011 § 8 Comments

Lawyers in my district are aware that I have begun cracking down on the handling of estates, guardianships and conservatorships.  Delinquent and inadequate accountings, lack of inventories, absence of vouchers and other deficiencies are no longer tolerated.

My motivation in part has been the fact that there are lawsuits pending against local lawyers claiming mishandling of fiduciary matters.  On the coast only last year, it was discovered that a lawyer serving as county administrator until his death may have misappropriated funds in excess of a million dollars.

If you’re going to handle probate matters, understand that as the lawyer you have a grave responsibility for which you may be held liable by judgment for the proper handling of the estate by the fiduciary.  Let me repeat that you may be held liable by judgment.

My responsibility as chancellor is not only to ensure that the assets and rights of the ward or estate are protected, but also to see that the attorney does not err.

To get an idea of the gravity, you need to read and take to heart the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in Matthews v. Williams, 633 So.2d 1038 (Miss. 1994).  In that case, the conservator failed to file an inventory and, when he finally did, omitted financial assets.  He failed to file accountings, and when he finally did reported expenditures made without any prior approval of the court.  He made investments without approval of the court, and was unable to account properly for them.  The chancellor approved his actions, but when that chancellor left office, the next chancellor granted a petition to remove the conservator.  Here are some key excerpts from the court’s opinion (beginning at page 1039):

A chancery court-appointed conservator has the “same duties, powers and responsibilities as a guardian of a minor, and all laws relative to the guardianship of a minor shall be applicable to a conservator.” Miss.Code Ann. § 93-13-259 (1972).  [NOTE:  And MCA § 93-13-38 states that “All the provisions of law on the subject of executors and administrators, relating to settlement or disposition of property limitations, notice to creditors, probate and registration of claims, proceedings to insolvency and distribution of assets of insolvent estates, shall, insofar as applicable and not otherwise provided, be observed and enforced in all guardianships.”
I. INVENTORY
Miss.Code Ann. § 93-13-33 (1972) states:

Every guardian shall, within three months after his appointment, return to the court, under oath, a true and perfect inventory of the estate, real and personal, and of all money or other things which he may have received as the property of his ward; and he shall return additional inventories of whatever he may subsequently receive. And he shall annually return an inventory, under oath, of the increase of the estate, if there be any. A guardian who shall fail to return inventories may be removed and his bond put in suit, unless he can show cause for the default. (Emphasis added)

The first inventory was not filed until February 23, 1988, a year and two months following Dan’s appointment. It did not mention bonds owned by the estate. The third inventory filed May 13, 1990, purporting to show the inventory of the estate as of December 31, 1989, lists “Series E. Bonds $2,063.22.”

The bonds were first identified by serial number and date of purchase in the fourth inventory showing assets as of December 18, 1990, and filed January 7, 1991, which states: “Series E Bonds (all $25.00/7 year Bonds),” and then lists twenty-seven bonds by serial number and showing dates of purchase from July 1966 through July 1969. Subsequent inventories were not timely filed, and no reason was given therefor. There is no explanation for failure to include the bonds.

II. ANNUAL ACCOUNTS

The annual accounts required by Miss.Code Ann. § 93-13-67 (1974) were not timely filed, and no reason was offered therefor.  [NOTE: MCA § 93-13-67 states: “Except as herein provided, and as provided in section 93-13-7, every guardian shall, at least once in each year, and oftener if required, exhibit his account, showing the receipts of money on account of his ward, and showing the annual product of the estate under his management, and the sale or other disposition thereof, and showing also each item of his expenditure in the maintenance and education of his ward and in the preservation and management of his estate, supported by legal vouchers…. And such accounts shall be examined, approved, and allowed by the court in the same way that the accounts of executors and administrators are examined, approved, and allowed. Compliance with the duties required, in this section, of guardian shall be enforced by the same means and in the same manner as is provided in respect to the accounts of executors and administrators. (Emphasis added)
III. EXPENDITURES WITHOUT COURT APPROVAL
Much more serious is the failure of Dan to seek court approval prior to making expenditures. Section 93-13-38 (1993) provides:

It shall be the duty of the guardian … to improve the estate committed to his charge, and to apply so much of the income, profit or body thereof as may be necessary for the comfortable maintenance and support of the ward and of his family, if he have any, after obtaining an order of the court fixing the amount…. The guardian is empowered to collect and sue for and recover all debts due his said ward … (Emphasis added)

This statute requires that a court order fixing the amount to be spent for the care and maintenance of the ward be obtained prior to making such expenditures. Dan simply made the expenditures as he saw fit. When this Court addressed such action in Welch v. Childers, 195 Miss. 415, 420, 15 So.2d 690, 691 (1943), we held:

A minor under guardianship is a ward of the Chancery Court. All receipts and disbursements of his estate are required to be under the authority and direction of the Chancery Court or the Chancellor in vacation. The expenses for the maintenance and support of the ward cannot be proved in any other way. The object of the law is to guard against dishonesty and mismanagement of the estate by the guardian…. The law does not leave the amount of the expenditures by the guardian for the maintenance, support and education to (the guardian’s) discretion. The sum must be fixed by the court. If the guardian contracts therefor without the sanction of the Chancery Court or Chancellor, the liability therefor is personal to him, and he cannot be allowed for it in his accounts for the ward. The guardian has no power to bind the estate of his ward without the sanction of the Chancery Court or the Chancellor.

That prior court approval is absolutely required by statute before a conservator makes expenditures seems never to have occurred to counsel representing Dan or the chancellor who then examined and approved them. Expenditures for the care and maintenance of Mrs. Mathews and her property were made by Dan as though he had some blanket power of attorney to spend as he thought best, and only then report it to a chancellor. No explanation was offered to the chancellor for all these expenditures having been made without court approval, nor did the chancellor require one. This is of profound concern to this Court. We again remind attorneys for estates of wards and decedents and the chancellors who examine accounts and inventories that they, too, have special and far-reaching fiduciary duties. It was the obligation of the attorney to advise the conservator as to his statutory duties, responsibilities, and limitations on expenditures. As for chancellors, a chancellor who must approve accounts and inventories has a duty beyond deciding lawsuits. He is under an obligation first to see that accounts and inventories filed comply with the statutes before he approves them. He is also the “superior guardian” of the ward. This Court long ago in Union Chevrolet Co. v. Arrington, 162 Miss. 816, 826, 827, 138 So. 593, 595 (1932), held:

Infants and persons of unsound mind are disabled under the law to act for themselves. Long ago it became the established rule for the court of chancery to act as the superior guardian for all persons under such disability. This inherent and traditional power and protective duty is made complete and irrefragable by the provisions of our present state constitution. It is not competent for the Legislature to abate the said powers and duties or for the said court to omit or neglect them. It is the inescapable duty of the said court and or the chancellor to act with constant care and solicitude towards the preservation and protection of the rights of infants and persons non compos mentis. The court will take nothing as confessed against them; will make for them every valuable election; will rescue them from faithless guardians, designing strangers, and even from unnatural parents, and in general will and must take all necessary steps to conserve and protect the best interest of these wards of the court. The court will not and cannot permit the rights of an infant to be prejudiced by an waiver, or omission or neglect or design of a guardian, or of any other person, so far as within the power of the court to prevent or correct. Grif.Chan.Prac. §§ 45, 360, 530, 533. All persons who deal with guardians or with courts in respect to the rights of infants are charged with the knowledge of the above principles, and act to the contrary thereof at their peril. (Emphasis added)  Also, Mississippi State Bar Association v. Moyo, 525 So.2d 1289, 1293 (Miss.1988).

Solicitors for guardians and conservators and chancellors who must approve their accounts and inventories who ignore these fiduciary responsibilities make a perilous mistake.  [Note from the opinion:  We are not comforted by the May 18, 1990, decree approving the third annual account in which the chancellor first authorized the conservator to “pay all future medical, personal, and other expenses for the creature comforts of Frances Mathews.” With no representation from Dan as to why any of these expenses might be, the chancellor gave him blanket authorization to expend his estate’s funds.

IV. INVESTMENTS WITHOUT COURT APPROVAL

Section 93-13-57 Miss.Code Ann. (1972) deals with the method the guardian is to utilize in disposing of surplus money not necessary for the current expenditures for the ward. This section provides in part:

Whenever the guardian shall have money of his ward not needed for current expenditures, or directed to be invested for the ward, he shall apply to the court, or chancellor in vacation, for direction as to the disposition he shall make of it. The court or chancellor shall determine whether he shall lend it at interest, and upon what security, or how he shall dispose of it. If the court or chancellor designate the person to whom the loan shall be made, or the security on which it shall be made, and the loan to be so made, responsibility shall not attach thereafter to the guardian; but if the court or chancellor shall entrust him with discretion in the matter, he shall be bound for the exercise of sound judgment…. Any guardian who fails to report to the court the fact that he has money of his ward not needed or allowed to be used for current expenditures, and to ask the order of the court as to the disposition of such money, may be chargeable with interest on the same at the rate of eight per centum (8%) per annum during the time of failure. (Emphasis added)

Dan, on behalf of Mrs. Mathews, purchased certificates of deposit, invested in stock, and sold stock, all without prior court approval.

Moreover, we have been unable to trace the certificates of deposit from one accounting period to the next because the numbers identifying them differed. Interest proceeds appear to have been treated inconsistently, some deposited in the ward’s checking account, other reinvested. Interest deposited in the checking account identified by certificate of deposit numbers differed from the numbers identifying the certificates in the inventory for that period.

On January 23, 1987, Dan petitioned and on January 26, 1987, received court approval to commence legal action to recover money fraudulently obtained from her. No report was ever made to the court of the outcome of this action.

V. QUESTIONABLE EXPENDITURES

In deciding whether Dan should be removed as conservator, the chancellor also had authority to consider his expenditure, and without prior court approval, of more than $1,800 in repairs on a pickup truck valued at $800, and in an 18-month period following the ward’s admittance to the nursing home, $498 for oil, gas and service for the truck. Utilities and household expenses, including a telephone, were kept active after Mrs. Mathews went to a nursing home, and expenditures made, all without court approval. Some vouchers were made to “cash.”

We do not have before us and do not address the justification for any expenditures made by Dan as conservator, or their reasonableness or necessity. These may be proper inquiries upon remand. Neville v. Kelso, 247 So.2d 828, 834-835 (Miss.1971).

The chancellor should also upon remand see that inventories reflect and accurately trace the investment of all funds.

Our sole inquiry on this appeal is whether the chancellor abused his discretion in removing Dan as conservator, and for the reasons set forth she clearly did not. Harris v. King, 480 So.2d 1131, 1132 (Miss.1985); Conner v. Polk, 161 Miss. 24, 29, 133 So. 604, 605 (1931).

I don’t know how it could be any clearer.  You deal lackadaisically with probate matters at your peril.  Your law license, your reputation as an attorney, your malpractice coverage, and even your own assets are on the line.  I am not being melodramatic when I say this; I am being completely truthful and trying to wave a huge caution flag.  Matthews v. Williams makes it abundantly clear that the approval of the chancellor will not shield you or your fiduciary.

A LESS-THAN-FINAL JUDGMENT

July 6, 2011 § 3 Comments

It sometimes happens that the chancellor grants some of the relief requested, saying in effect, “That’s all I’m going to do,” and directs entry of a final judgment.  It happens, for instance, where one party asks for an award of attorney’s fees and the court does not want to grant it, or where one party in a divorce wants the living room furniture that the other party has and the judge leaves things as they are. You can conjure up some similar scenarios.

The question is: when the judge does that, is there a final, appealable judgment?

The COA addressed what is not a final, appealable judgment in two recent decisions handed down the same day.

In Jackson v. Lowe, decided June 28, 2011, the COA answered the question by reference to MRCP 54(b), which states:

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counter-claim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an expressed determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an expressed direction for the entry of the judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated which adjudicates fewer than all of the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.

In Jackson, the court held that since the chacellor’s decision did not address several issues and did not certify that it was a final judgment as to the issues adjudicated, it was an interlocutory judgment that was not appealable, and until the parties saw to it that all issues had been addressed, there was no jurisdiction for an appeal. 

A similar result was reached in S.E.B. v. R.E.B. decided June 28, 2011, in which the chancellor flatly refused to adjudicate alimony and child support.

What the COA is telling you is that unless the trial court’s judgment addresses every claim, or unless you have a Rule 54(b) certificate from the trial judge, you are going nowhere on appeal until you do.

I posted here about some of the nuances of Rule 54(b), and you might want to take a look at the post again.

I have almost always included a paragraph in my judgments that states to the effect that “The court has considered all other issues and prayers for relief asserted by the parties and finds that they should be denied and no further relief granted.” I do not know whether that will suffice as an adjudication, and after the S.E.B. decision, I’m not so sure; no one has ever raised the issue. Of course, I use that only for miscellaneous issues that do not have trial factors because failure to address applicable trial factors is reversible error. I also have included a Rule 52(b) certificate in appropriate cases.

Moral of the story: If you are not satisfied that the chancellor has met the requirements of Rule 52(b), be sure to file the proper motion for a certificate, and do it timely. If you are outside the 10-day requirement of Rule 59, you might want to file a motion to set the remaining issues for trial. Yes, this will likely steam up your judge, who probably figured your case was concluded, but just smile and show her a copy of Jackson v. Lowe, and maybe everything will be all right.      

A COMPENDIUM OF ESTATE POSTS

July 5, 2011 § 6 Comments

WHAT, ME WORRY?

June 30, 2011 § 6 Comments

Newman

It was the philosopher Alfred E. Newman who coined the epigram, “What, me Worry?”  I suspect he also came up with the fallacious thought that “What you don’t know can’t hurt you,” which as any lawyer can tell you, is tragically and dangerously untrue.

Take as a case in point Ivison v. Ivison, 762 So.2d 219 (Miss. 2000).  Mrs. Ivison got the former marital residence in the divorce, and the ex-husband paid the mortgage notes.  The husband deducted the payments because he was advised that payments made to a third party on behalf of another are treated as alimony and are deductible, if they are mandated in a divorce judgment or property settlement agreement and meet the other criteria for alimony.  Mr. Ivison took the deduction, and Mrs. Ivison got a nice, but businesslike letter from the IRS explaining that they wanted her to pony up the income taxes, which were in an amount significant enough to give Mrs. Ivison a bad case of hiccups and send her scurrying to court.

Mrs. Ivison complained to the chancellor that she had not been advised by her attorney at the time that the payments were going to be treated as income, and that she would never have agreed to the divorce settlement had she known.  She convinced the sympathetic chancellor that the ex-husband, and not she, should have to pay the taxes.  She got her modification.

On appeal, the MSSC reversed and rendered.  The opinion pointed out that the applicable tax law had been in effect at the time of the divorce, so the situation did not constitute a material change in circumstances.  The court also held that ignorance of the law, and particularly in this case tax law, is not a reason to modify.

I do not know what happened to the attorney who did not advise Mrs. Ivison.  I hope he or she had enough malpractice insurance coverage to weather the storm.  This was truly a case where what you don’t know can indeed hurt you.  And to put it even more pointedly:  What your client does not know that you should have advised her about can indeed hurt you.

ANOTHER UNSUCCESSFUL ASSAULT ON THE NATURAL PARENT PRESUMPTION

June 29, 2011 § 1 Comment

It is axiomatic that as between a natural parent and a third party, it is presumed that the best interest of the child will be preserved by being in the custody of the natural parent. Sellers v. Sellers, 638 So.2d 481, 486 (Miss. 1994). This natural parent presumption over third-party custody has been the subject of prior posts here and here.

In Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So.3d 1261 (Miss. 2010), the supreme court reversed a chancellor’s ruling that a temporary agreement to change custody was enough to overcome the presumption.  In Wells v. Smith, decided May 31, 2011, by the COA, the appellate court rejected in loco parentis as a basis to overcome the presumption.

In Brown v. Hargrave, decided June 28, 2011, the COA rejected yet another assault on the presumption, this time based on the judge’s finding that the totality of the circumstances and the plaintiff’s long-term care of the child.  Relying again on Vaughn v. Davis, the found that the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard, and sent the case back to the chancellor for a rehearing to determine whether some other basis exists to overcome the presumption.

I’m going to take up for the chancellor in this one so as to make an important point. Chancellors are sometimes (too often I might add) confronted with a situation in which it is obvious that one party has no business with custody of the child, and that the child would be far better off with the other party. The problem is that the case is sloppily tried, points are not made in the record, evidence is not introduced, and the chancellor is left with having to do what he or she fervently believes to be in the best interest of the child without an adequate supporting record. The usual result is a remand, or, in some cases a rendered reversal.

If you don’t want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, put on as strong a case of unfitness as you can muster. Put on proof of circumstances that are strong enough to rise to the level of abandonment. Make as strong a case as you can. If you leave the judge without much to hang his decision on, it may end up that your client is the unhappy one.

PERILS OF PROCESS BY PUBLICATION, EPISODE THREE

June 27, 2011 § 9 Comments

You can read here and here some of the snares in MRCP 4 that can snap painfully on the unwary.  Unwary = those who don’t bother to read the rules.

MRCP 4 publication claimed its latest victim on June 14, 2011, in the COA case of Turner v. Deutsche Bank.  In that case, the bank filed a judicial foreclosure and published process to Angela Turner.  The original complaint recited Angela’s address, and the bank duly sent its process server there, only to discover that she had moved, whereabouts unknown.  At that point, without amending its pleadings or filing an affidavit of diligent inquiry, Deutsche published process and a chancellor signed a default judgment finding, among other things, that the court had jurisdiction.

Angela awoke to what had happened and filed an MRCP 60 motion to set aside the judgment, and the original chancellor recused herself.  Her successor overruled Angela’s motion in part because the court had already ruled that it had jurisdiction.

The court of appeals reversed and remanded.  Here are some pertinent excerpts from the decision:

  • “Deutsche Bank attempted to serve Turner by publication under Rule 4(c)(4), which provides for situations where the defendant cannot be found within the state. Publication of the summons must be made once a week for three consecutive weeks in the public newspaper of the county if one exists, as in our case. M.R.C.P. 4(c)(4)(B). But service by this method is only permitted “[i]f the defendant . . . be shown by sworn complaint or sworn petition, or by a filed affidavit, to be a nonresident of this state or not to be found therein on diligent inquiry.” M.R.C.P. 4(c)(4)(A).”
  • “¶10. The affidavit or sworn complaint must also state the defendant’s post-office address, if known, or swear that it could not be determined after a diligent inquiry. Id. If the postoffice address is listed, the sworn petition or affidavit must further provide the defendant’s street address or that it could not be determined after a diligent inquiry. M.R.C.P. 4(c)(4)(B). And if the plaintiff provides a post-office address, the clerk must mail the defendant (by firstclass mail, postage pre-paid) a copy of the summons and complaint to his post-office address, and note having done so on the general docket. M.R.C.P. 4(c)(4)(C). “
  • “¶12. The rules on service of process are to be strictly construed. If they have not been complied with, the court is without jurisdiction unless the defendant appears of his own volition.” Kolikas v. Kolikas, 821 So. 2d 874, 878 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (internal citation omitted). Actual notice does not cure defective process. See, e.g., Mosby v. Gandy, 375 So. 2d 1024, 1027 (Miss. 1979). “Even if a defendant is aware of a suit, the failure to comply with rules for the service of process, coupled with the failure of the defendant voluntarily to appear, prevents a judgment from being entered against him.” Sanghi, 759 So. 2d at 1257 (¶33). [Emphasis added]
  • “¶13. In Kolikas, we found a chancellor erred in failing to set aside a divorce decree, where the plaintiff attempted service by publication without strictly complying with the requirements of Rule 4(c)(4). Kolikas, 821 So. 2d at 879 (¶32). We observed that a defendant is “under no obligation to notice what is going on in a cause in court against him, unless the court has gotten jurisdiction of him in some manner recognized by law.” Id. at 878 (¶17).”  [Emphasis added]
  • In the petition or affidavit, the plaintiff must certify to the court, among other things, that the defendant is a nonresident or cannot be found in Mississippi.
  • This conclusion is supported by the supreme court’s decision in Caldwell v. Caldwell, 533 So. 2d at 415. There, the supreme court noted that Rule 4(c)(4)(A) was substantially the same as the statute in place before the adoption of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. The Caldwell court found instructive and quoted favorably a pre-rules treatise’s comment that “[a]n affidavit to support process by publication must strictly comply with the statute and if it omit[s] averment of diligent inquiry it is insufficient.” Id. at 416 (quoting Griffith, Mississippi Chancery Practice , Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc. 225-27 (1925)). And “where notice by publication is resorted to . . . as a basis for the jurisdiction of the court, in lieu of personal summons[,] all the requirements of the statute as to such notice must be strictly complied with[.]” Id. at 415 (emphasis added). Rule 4(c)(4)(A) is equally clear that the plaintiff must attest that he has performed a diligent inquiry before performing service by publication. It is no less true today that a sworn averment of diligent inquiry must be made to effectuate proper service by publication. “[Emphasis added]
  • “Rule 60(b) provides that the court may relieve a party from a final judgment if one of the stated conditions is met. One such condition exists where “the judgment is void.” M.R.C.P. 60(b)(4). Our supreme court has held that “[a] court must have . . . proper service of process . . . in order to enter a default judgment against a party. Otherwise, the default judgment is void.” McCain v. Dauzat, 791 So. 2d 839, 842 (¶7) (Miss. 2001) (internal citation omitted). Although “[t]he grant or denial of a 60(b) motion is generally within the discretion of the trial court, . . . [i]f the judgment is void, the trial court has no discretion.”

So here’s what you need to take away from this case:

First, if you’re going to obtain process by publication, you are going to have to comply with every technical requirement of MRCP 4(c)(4).  The rule is to be strictly construed.

Second, if you have not been able to discover the whereabouts of the other party for service of process, you must file your affidavit of diligent inquiry before you publish. Filing it later will not work.

Third, if you do not comply strictly with the rule, your judgment will be void and subject to being set aside. In other words, you client will have paid you for accomplishing nothing, and maybe even for putting him in a worse position. That usually makes a client peeved enough to sue somebody.

This is yet another in a long list of decisions that would have had an entirely different outcome if counsel had simply taken a few minutes to read the rule and do what it says.

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the Practice and Procedure category at The Better Chancery Practice Blog.