ATTORNEY’S FEES IN AN ESTATE
January 19, 2011 § 2 Comments
Every administrator or executor is required by Uniform Chancery Court Rule (UCCR) 6.10 to have an attorney to represent him or her in connection with administration of the estate.
The attorney’s fees of the administrator or executor are not the obligation of the estate, but are the personal obligation of the fiduciary, but they may be allowed by the court as part of the administration expenses. Scott v. Hollingsworth, 487 So.2d 811, 813 (Miss. 1986). In order to be properly allowed by the court as administration expense, the attorney’s fees must benefit the estate, and fees which do not benefit the estate are properly disallowed. Estate of Collins v. Collins, 742 So.2d 147, 149 (Miss. App. 1999).
In making his determination of an attorney fee award, the chancellor must weigh several factors:
“The factors which the chancery court considers in fixing the amount of reasonable compensation are varied. Among those factors, however, are the following: time, skill, the responsibility, the monetary value of the estate administered and its liquidity, the speedy disposition of the business, the services of the attorney, the practice of attorneys in that court and the charging of fees for similar services, the complexity of the issues, and the necessity of litigation concerning the estate business.” Scott at 814.
I disallowed a claim of more than $20,000 for attorney’s fees in an estate where no action had been taken in 18 months after the qualification of the fiduciary, the fiduciary and not the attorneys had done most of the work, the attorneys were charging more than $350 an hour, the reasonable hourly rate in this district is $185, the estate was fairly simple and should have been closed in less than a year, and a substantial portion of the fees were attributable to the fiduciary resisting the sole beneficiary’s efforts to have him ousted for inaction.
If you want to get paid for your services to the fiduciary, you had better become very familiar with UCCR 6.11 and 6.12.
This judge will require that an itemized statement of services rendered by filed in the court file and, preferably, be attached as an exhibit signed and sworn by the fiduciary. The old practice of filing a broad, general statement of services without showing the time expended, is no longer acceptable. The purpose of an itemized statement is to disclose to all interested parties what services were rendered for the benefit of the estate, and to allow them an opportunity to be heard, pro or con. The best practice in a final account is to attach the attorney fee statement as an exhibit to the petition to close so that all interested parties will have notice and opportunity to agree by joining in the petition or to contest it.
If the petition for fees is based on recovery of damages for wrongful death, UCCR 6.12 imposes some specific and stringent requirements. The fee allowed ” … will be fixed by the chancellor at such sum as will be reasonable compensation for the service rendered and expense incurred without being bound by any contract made with any unauthorized persons.” Any agreement for a contingent fee must be approved in advance by the chancellor. In other words, if you don not get your contract approved in advance, you will be working on a quantum meruit basis rather than on a contingency.
THE FAMILY USE DOCTRINE IS ALIVE AND WELL
January 18, 2011 § 3 Comments
It is well settled in our jurisprudence that a gift to or inheritance by one of the parties during the marriage is separate property unless it loses its separate character through some act of the parties. Title, for instance, may be changed from individual to joint. Or separate funds may be commingled to the extent that they lose their separate character. Or there may be investment of marital assets in the separate property so that the marital estate has a substantial stake in it.
In 2000, the concept of the “family use doctrine” made its appearance in Mississippi in the case of Brame v. Brame, 98-CA-00502-COA, ¶20 (Miss. App. 2000), in which the husband’s clock, piano and dining set, all of which had been gifted to him took on a “new personna [sic] of full family use,” and was converted from separate into marital property.
In Rhodes v. Rhodes, decided by the court of appeals on January 11, 2011, the court found that a Florida vacation home purchased by the husband three years before the marriage was converted into marital property under the family use doctrine based on the facts that: the wife engaged in “extensive efforts” in the property’s upkeep and maintenance; the wife “undertook efforts” to improve the property; the wife decorated the home on her own; the husband made payments on the home from his earnings through the marriage; the wife made contributions through deposits into a joint checking account; the wife contributed housekeeping efforts to the home; the wife and “her family” regularly vacationed and spent holidays there; the wife lived there for a considerable time and considered it her second home; and she and her daughter used it as a residence for “several months” after Hurricane Katrina. Rhodes at ¶ 36. The court held that as a result of the combination of factors, “the vacation home lost its character” as separate property of the husband. Thus, as of January 2011, the family use doctrine is alive and well.
On the facts of this case, with the many factors apparently supported by the evidence, it’s hard to quibble with the outcome. Most practitioners and trial judges grasp without any difficulty the equitable principles involved in finding a conversion from separate to marital when there has been financial investment of marital money and/or “sweat equity” in the property.
What gives most of us at the trial level pause, though, is the concept that an item may be converted from separate to marital property simply because it is used in the marriage by the family.
If I were a lawyer whose client just inherited a mortgage-free beach home in Gulf Shores and was concerned about the future of his marriage, would I not be wise to advise him under our current law: to prohibit any use of the property by his wife and children; and to pay all taxes and expenses of the property from entirely separate funds and not from any current income. Or what if the wife inherits an antique Baldwin grand piano from her aunt, would she not be best advised to store it where neither the husband nor the children could touch it and possibly convert it into marital property, even though the daughter has considerable musical skills and would benefit from its use?
Assuming I am correct about the above advice, how in the world does such a policy promote what is best for the family as a whole? Policy and its consequences often have a strong influence on people’s actions. Is this one of those unintended consequences we’ve talked about here before?
INSOLVENT ESTATES
January 13, 2011 § 5 Comments
When the debts and expenses of the estate exceed the value of its assets, the estate is said to be insolvent, and there is a procedure for adjudication of insolvency, satisfaction of creditors, and payment of administration expenses that is spelled out in MCA § 91-7-261 through -268.
The estate is insolvent when its debts and the expenses of administration exceed the value of the real property and the other property that is not exempt. You can find out more about exempt property here.
Either the administrator or a creditor may petition the court to adjudicate its insolvency.
MCA § 91-7-261 sets out the procedure to determine insolvency. The administrator is required to “take proper steps speedily to ascertain whether the estate be solvent or insolvent.” If the administrator finds that the estate is insolvent, she files a “true account” itemizing all of the personal estate, assets of every description, the land of the deceased, and all of the deceased’s debts. Notice is given to the devisees or heirs, and the matter is presented to the court for hearing. If the court determines from the account that the estate is indeed insolvent, the chancellor will order that the assets be sold and that the expenses of ” … the last sickness, the funeral, and the administration, including the commissions …” are first paid out of the proceeds,” and that any remaining proceeds be divided among the creditors ” … in proportion to the sums due and owing them respectively …”
The procedure for distribution of remaining proceeds among the creditors is provided in MCA § 91-7-269. After the time to probate claims has elapsed, a notice is published for three consecutive weekss in a newspaper published in the county that the claims against the estate will be taken up by the court on a day and at a time certain, that any and all claims not required by law to be probated shall be filed with the clerk by a stated date, and that all creditors may attend. A hearing is held at which the administrator may object to any claim, evidence is presented pro and con, and the court may either allow it in whole or in part, or reject it in whole or in part. The administrator may file a verified application to be reimbursed for claims paid peior to the adjudication of insolvency, and the court shall treat them as if they had been properly probated.
MCA § 91-7-271 provides that the allowed claims shall be paid pro rata, and any creditor not paid within ten day of the court’s order shall have execution against the executor or administrator and the sureties on his bond.
Any suit pending against the executor or administrator at the time of insolvency does not abate, but may be prosecuted to final judgment, according to MCA § 91-7-273, but -274 bars suits from being filed after the estate is declared insolvent. You should read -273 carefully for the effect of and payment of a judgment against the estate for suits that were pending when the insolvency is determined.
UNDERSTANDING THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE
January 12, 2011 § 8 Comments
I would nominate MRE 1002 for second-most misunderstood rule of evidence (the all-time front-runner, without peer, would be the hearsay rule).
It’s fairly common to hear an exchange like this in court:
Atty 1: How much did you pay for the house?
Atty 2: Objection. The best evidence of what was paid would be the closing statement.
That objection and every one like it should be overruled.
MRE 1002 states:
To prove the content of a writing, recording or photograph, the original writing, recording or photograph is required except as otherwise provided in these rules or by law. [Emphasis added]
The rule only applies and requires the original when a party is seeking to prove the content of the original. Farris v. State, 906 So.2d 113, 115 (Miss. App. 2004). It does not apply simply because there exists a writing, recording or photograph that may be considered the “best” evidence of the matter.
The rule comes into play only when (a) the content of the writing, recording or photograph is itself the thing a party is trying to prove, or (b) a party is trying to prove a matter by using a writing, recording or photograph as evidence of it. The rule applies only when one seeks to prove the contents of the writing, photograph or recording so that they may be construed, and does not apply when one is seeking only to prove the existence of a writing, recording or photograph. Kinard v. Morgan, 679 So.2d 623, 625 (Miss. 1996).
An example of (a) would be where the party is trying to testify to the terms of a written contract. The contract itself would be the best evidence, and the original would need to be produced.
An example of (b) would be where the witness is testifying about the a claim based on an invoice that shows the items purchased, dates of purchase and prices. The original invoice would itself establish the claim and would be the best evidence of the transaction.
The rule would not apply to the following situations:
A witness with personal knowledge can testify about how much he earned in a pay period without producing the original pay records. Simply because written documents pertaining to a matter exist does not mean that a witness may not testify on personal knowledge about the matter. On the contrary, though, if the witness does not have personal knowledge and relies on documents for her information, she would be required to produce the original documents.
A witness may testify that a document exists without producing the original, but any testimony about the document’s content will require production of the original.
A person who heard another make a statement that was recorded may testify about what she heard without having to produce the recording.
The rule does not apply to physical evidence that is not writings, photographs or recordings. Riley v. State, 1 So.3d 877, 882 (Miss. App. 2008). In Riley, the appellant argued unsuccessfully that the State had violated the best evidence rule by not offering the original firearm involved in the crime into evidence.
The evidence qualifies as a “duplicate,” as defined in MRE 1001(4).
So here is the bottom line: A witness may testify on personal knowledge about a matter even if there is a writing, recording or photograph that documents the same thing, and the writing, recording or photograph need not be produced in such an event; but you must produce the original if you are trying to prove its content.
An important caveat: Just because you have satisfied MRE 1002 by producing the original does not in and of itself make that original admissible. The document or recording must still meet authentication and hearsay objections, and a foundation must be laid for admission of the photograph.
MRE 1004 provides some exceptions to the requirement for the original, such as loss or destruction of the original, original not obtainable, or original in possession of an opponent. Production of the original may also be dispensed with if the document, recording or photograph pertains only to collateral matters.
CORROBORATION PROBLEMS = DIVORCE PROBLEMS
January 11, 2011 § 3 Comments
I posted here about how crucial it is for the proof of grounds in fault-based divorces to be corroborated.
In Ladner v. Ladner, decided December 14, 2010, the court of appeals again emphasized the strength of the corroboration rule. The court stated at ¶ 10 the familiar principle that “The corroborated testimony must show conduct that ‘endangers life, limb, or health, or creates reasonable apprehension of such danger, rendering it impossible for [the other] spouse to discharge the duties of the marriage, thus destroying the basis for its continuance.'”
Deborah Ladner charged her husband Philip with habitual cruel and inhuman treatment She testified that Philip had been abusive toward her and assaulted her. She offered into evidence two police reports and two rpotective orders, which both the trial judge and the court of appeals found not to be corroborative because all of the information they contained was provided by Deborah. The appellate court also found uncorroborative a statement in a police report that the parties’ son was afraid of his father, and that Philp had broken his daughter’s door in anger because those showed only a troubled relationship with the children and did not corroborate Deborah’s testimony about violence directed at her. The court reversed the chancellor’s decision granting Daborah a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.
Justice Carlton in her dissent would have found the testimony adequately corroborated to grant Deborah a divorce on habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. She quoted from Professor Bell’s treatise that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient in itself to establish the ground, but only needs to be enough for the court to conclude that the plaintiff’s testimony is true.
An interesting twist in this case is that the chancellor granted both parties a divorce. He granted Deborah a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, and he granted Philip a divorce on the ground of adultery. Philip had raised the issue that it was improper for the chancellor to grant dual divorces, but the court of appeals held that issue to be moot, based on its reversal of Deborah’s divorce.
There are several points chancery practitioners need to come away from this case with:
- No corroboration = no divorce. The requirement of corroboration is alive and well, and you need to be sure you have a corroborating witness or two lined up to support your case.
- Self-corroboration will not work. The information Deborah submitted to corroborate her claims that she generated was found not to be corroboration, and that makes perfect sense. It’s easy for a party to generate police reports and file charges to build a case. Those kinds of documents are nothing more than her own statements, so they corroborate nothing.
- The corroboration has to be linked to the conduct charged. Deborah’s proof about her son and daughter was not tied to conduct directed at her. Maybe the result would have been different if the son had testified that he was afraid of his dad because the son saw him threaten or physically mistreat the mom; if the door-breaking incident had been tied to a rampage in which Philip manhandled Deborah, that may have been the link she needed.
The easiest thing in the world is to tell your client, “Be sure to bring a witness to court who can back up your testimony about how he mistreated you.” That’s a ticket to failure, though. You need to investigate and identify who are the witnesses and what is the competent evidence that will make your client’s claim. It is no less important than discovering the value of that securities account or uncovering that hidden bank account.
FINAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY IN JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY
January 6, 2011 § 3 Comments
MCA § 93-5-24 provides that the joint legal custodians shall “share the decison-making rights, the responsibilities and the authority relating to the health, education and welfare of a child,” and “An award of joint legal custody obligates the parties to exchange information concerning the health, education and welfare of the minor child, and to confer with each other in the exercise of the decision-making rights, responsibilities and authority.”
The problem is that the statute does not delineate exactly how final decisions will be made after the conferring is done. Common sense tells us that there can not be a committee of two. What if, for instance, the father demands that the child attend military school in Chattanooga, but the mother is just as adamant that the child attend Lamar in Meridian? Or how about if one parent believes that the child should have botox injections for cosmetic reasons and the other is opposed? Or one parent takes the position that the child should take ADHD medication, and the other is opposed to medication? Or one wants the child to have the usual childhood immunizations and the other does not out of fear of autism. The statute does not inform us how those ties or any others, some involving important decisions about the children, will be broken.
In this district, both chancellors take the position that joint legal custody is not in the best interest of the child and will not be approved unless there is some form of a tie-breaker provision.
Some lawyers try to skirt the problem by providing in a PSA that the parent with physical custody at the time will have final decision-making authority. This approach does not work, however, because the effect of life-affecting decisions like those enumerated above carry over into the other parent’s custodial time in shared physical custody arrangements.
Most PSA’s address the issue by providing that one parent or the other will have final decision-making, or tie-breaking, authority. That still means that both parents must confer, consult and participate in the decision-making process as required by the statute. Although the physical custodian is the most logical tie-breaker, I had a case once where the mother had sole physical custody and the parents shared joint legal custody of a paraplegic child. They agreed that the father would have final decision-making authority because he would continue to be responsible to transport the child to and from school, to and from all of his activities and family and church events, and to and from Birmingham for numerous and frequent medical visits.
It is okay to allocate responsibility between the parents, as, for instance, where the father is going to pay for private school, and the parties agree that he will have final decision-making authority as to the child’s education, with the mother to make final decisons as to the health and welfare. In such a case, it would be wise to define exactly what the scope of authority would be as to education, since the three realms of decison-making overlap somewhat. For instance: “Father shall have the final decision-making authority as to which school the child will attend in Lauderdale County so long as both parties reside therein; all other decisions will be finally decided by the mother.”
In cases where one parent is the sole physical custodian, the case of Clements v Young, 481 So.2d 263, 266 (Miss. 1985), offers a little help and guidance. In that case, the Mississippi Supreme Court stated:
“Our law necessarily provides that the award of custody to a parent incident to a separation or divorce vests in the custodial parent the right to make, and responsibility for making, day to day decisions regarding the care and welfare of the children. Except as otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, the custodial parent may determine the child’s upbringing, including his education and health and dental care. Such discretion is inherent in custody. It is vested in the custodial spouse though not spelled out in detail in a separation agreement or custody decree.”
Clements does not address what happens where the parties “otherwise agree in writing,” as where they agree to joint legal custody with one to have sole custody. Have they “otherwise agreed” that the sole physical custodian will no longer have final decision authority, or is it presumed that the physical custodian will have it? Clements involved other issues and so is distinguishable on its facts. In my opinion, the best practice where one parent is the physical custodian and they share joint legal custody is simply to name the final decision-maker in the PSA.
An important reminder: I posted before about the danger of relying on the term “primary physical custody.” Designation of one parent as “primary” physical or legal custodian has no legal meaning whatsoever, and will not impart decision-making authority.
DO I NEED TO OPEN AN ESTATE TO DO THAT?
January 4, 2011 § 4 Comments
Seated in your office are the decedent’s adult children, asking your advice about daddy’s estate, which consisted of $5,000 in a bank account, a high-mileage car, and his last paycheck from Lockheed, which they have yet to receive. They candidly tell you that they don’t have a lot of money to pay to probate an estate.
I know what you’re thinking: “Oh, well. One more low-to-no fee estate won’t kill me.”
But hold on a minute. Take time out to check out these statutes: MCA §§ 91-7-322 and 323, and 81-5-63 and 81-12-143. You’ll see that they allow you with some simple paperwork to get your clients the money and title to the car without the necessity of opening an estate.
MCA § 91-7-322 and 81-5-63 allows the bank to pay up to $12,500 to the decedent’s “successors” as defined in the statute, with the filing of a simple affidavit. The same section would authorize issuance of title to the car.
MCA § 91-7-323 allows the former employer to pay any outstanding wages directly to the successors.
MCA § 81-12 143 authorizes a savings and loan to pay a savings account to successors without an administration, provided that they execute a bond.
LOSING: NOT THE NEXT BEST THING TO WINNING
December 28, 2010 § 1 Comment
This from Philip Thomas’s excellent blog Mississippi Litigation Review & Commentary. If these thoughts do not resonate with with your experience as a litigator, you might consider some tamer undertaking …
Losing Sucks
Posted on March 3, 2010 by Philip Thomas
You heard me. Losing a trial sucks. On multiple levels. Sorry if you don’t like my vocabulary.
Even worse, a win does not even out a loss. Tennis great Andre Agassi described it as well as anyone that I’ve heard even though he was talking about tennis and not trials:
Now that I’ve won a slam, I know something that very few people on earth are permitted to know. A win doesn’t feel as good as a loss feels bad, and the good feeling doesn’t last as long as the bad. Not even close.
Shortly after I started my first job as a lawyer I heard veteran trial lawyer Natie Caraway say basically the same thing. It took personal experience winning and losing trials to understand it.
For me a loss on appeal does not feel bad as a loss at a trial. And the loss of a bench trial does not feel as bad as the loss of a jury trial. The loss of a jury trial feels the worst because you hang it all on the line for twelve people who you don’t know and you are shattered when you find out that you could not convince them. And if you believe in your clients case–and most lawyers do–you think that the jury got it wrong. That makes it worse.
I have no answer for the best way to deal with a loss. But I agree with Chicago lawyer John Tucker on this point:
Courtroom lawyers and people who play sports are engaged in an endeavor where there is a winner and loser of every contest, and no matter how good they are, sometimes they lose.In fact, in both endeavors it is often true that the better they are the harder their contests and the more often they will lose. You don’t have to like it-in fact, you had better not-but you won’t last long if you don’t learn to get over it, or at least put it far enough behind you to go on to the next case.
Some lawyers lose a big trial and never recover. They are habitually afraid to re-enter the courtroom for fear of losing again. The best lawyers get over it and seek the adrenalin rush of going back in and putting it all on the line again.
THE LATEST ON CUSTODY OF OUT-OF-WEDLOCK CHILDREN
December 17, 2010 § Leave a comment
In the case of Reed and Daniels v. Fair, decided December 14, 2010, the court of appeals once again addressed the issue of the proper legal standard to apply when the unmarried parents of a child born out of wedlock face off over custody of the child.
Theresa Reed and Marvin Fair had a relationship that resulted in the birth of their son, M.T.F, in 1997. The parents never married each other, but Fair did acknowledge paternity. For most of the next twelve years, the child lived with his maternal grandmother, Irene Daniels. While in the grandmother’s care, M.T.F. was molested by another grandson.
Fair filed an action for custody, and Reed and Daniels counterclaimed in turn for custody. At trial, Reed and Daniels argued that, because of the length of time that M.T.F. was in Daniels’ care, the court should apply a modification standard. The chancellor found that, since there had never been a judgment awarding custody, it was not proper to apply a modification standard, and he adjudicated the case by application of the Albright factors. The chancellor awarded custody to Fair, and both Reed and Daniels appealed, complaining that the court should have analyzed the case as one for modification.
Justice Maxwell wrote the majority opinion, and it is such a concise exposition of the law on the subject that I have excerpted it here:
Generally, in an initial custody proceeding, the parties are “deemed on equal footing,” and custody is awarded based on the best interest of the child under the Albright factors. See Brown v. Crum, 30 So. 3d 1254, 1258 (Miss. App. 2010) (quoting Law v. Page, 618 So. 2d 96, 101 (Miss. 1993)).
But there are situations where certain legal presumptions prevent the parties from having an equal claim to custody. For example, the father of a child born out of wedlock would not stand on equal footing with the mother where the father does not acknowledge the child as his own. Hemphill-Weathers v. Farrish, 779 So. 2d 167, 172 (Miss. App. 2001). Absent other factors, all jurisdictions recognize that the mother of a child born out of wedlock, if a suitable person, possesses the primary right to the child’s custody where the father has not acknowledged the child. Smith v. Watson, 425 So. 2d 1030, 1033 (Miss. 1983), at 1033 (citing N. Hand, Jr., Mississippi Divorce, Alimony and Child Custody 271 (1981) (“upon acknowledging the child as his own, the father has an equal claim . . . to the parental and custodial rights of the child”).
While chancellors must also consider the Albright factors in modification proceedings, “the movant carries a heavier burden[.]” Romans v. Fulgham, 939 So. 2d 849, 852 (Miss. App. 2006). In a modification action, the party seeking custody must prove that since the original custody award, there has been a material change in circumstances adverse to the child, and a modification in custody would be in the child’s best interest. Tucker v. Tucker, 453 So. 2d 1294, 1297 (Miss. 1984).
In Law, the Mississippi supreme court held that “The ‘material changes’ standard used in modification proceedings is dependent on there being a prior determination of custody.” 618 So. 2d at 101. Relying on Law, the court of appeals has consistently held that where no previous custody determination has been made, the relevant standard is the child’s best interest under the Albright factors — not a “material change” modification standard. See Brown, 30 So. 3d 5 at 1258; , 990 So. 2d 774, 776 (Miss. App. 2008); Romans, 939 So. 2d at 853; C.W.L. v. R.A., 919 So. 2d 267, 271 (Miss. App. 2005); S.B. v. L.W., 793 So. 2d 656, 659 (Miss. App. 2001).
The court of appeals also rejected the theory that a modification standard applies by virtue of one parent’s receipt of child-support payments. Brown, 30 So. 3d at 1257-58; Romans, 939 So. 2d at 852.
The majority opinion rejected the appellants’ argument that because Fair had waited longer than parties in other court of appeals decisions to seek custody, that this case should be distinguished from the earlier decisions. The court refused to establish a “length of time” rule because (1) the resulting legal standard would likely be nebulous, and (2) no case law, including Mississippi supreme court precedent, supports hinging the applicable legal standard solely on the timeliness of the request for custody. See Romans, 939 So. 2d at 853. The majority declined to create a new rule or to overturn the established line of authority. Nonetheless, the opinion emphasized that its holding in no way prevents chancellors from considering the length of a parent’s delay in asserting a claim for custody when determining the best interest of the child. See Brown, 30 So. 3d at 1259 (“Although delay in asserting custody may be a factor to be considered in determining the best interest of the child, it is not the controlling factor.”).
So the state of the law at this point is that a father who acknowledged an out-of-wedlock child as his own stands on an equal footing with the natural mother in a custody determination, which will be treated as an original proceeding, and not as a modification.
CHILDREN AS WITNESSES
December 16, 2010 § Leave a comment
Lawyers who practice in my court are familiar with my prejudice against calling the children of the parties as witnesses in domestic cases. As the Supreme Court has said, ” … parents in a divorce proceeding should if at all possible refrain from calling any of the children of their marriage, of tender years at least, as witnesses, and counsel should advise their clients against doing so, except in the most exigent cases.” Jethrow v. Jethrow, 571 So.2d 270, 274 (Miss. 1990).
As for the definition of tender years, “[A] child is no longer of tender years when that child can be equally cared for by persons other than the mother.” Mercier v. Mercier, 717 So.2d 304, 307 (Miss.1998). A child over four years of age may no longer be considered of tender years. Copeland v. Copeland, 904 So.2d 1066, 1075 (Miss.2004). There is a rebuttable presumption that a child under the age of twelve is of tender years. Veasley v. State, 735 So.2d 432, 436-37 (Miss. 1999).
Jethrow does make it clear, however, that there is no per se rule against calling children of the parties as witnesses, and the case prescribes a procedure for the court to examine the child to make a determination whether the child is competent as a witness under Mississippi law and whether testifying is in the child’s best interest.
It is always within the trial judge’s discretion whether to allow the testimony of a child, and the line that I usually draw is to allow the child to testify only where omission of such testimony would be harmful to the child’s best interests. Even then, the court must find after a Jethrow examination that it is in the child’s best interest to testify. It is a weighing test, with the possible harm that may result to the child’s best interest from not testifying on one side of the scale and the possible harm from testifying on the other. Every case is different, and slightly different facts may yield radically different results.
As an attorney, you should counsel your client on the ramifications of calling a child as a witness. It pits the child against one of the parties, puts the child under incredible pressure, and subjects the child to cross examination that may confuse and intimidate the child.
Never, ever, tell your client that the child will definitely be allowed to “talk to the judge” or testify in chambers or out of the presence of the parents. Not only is that misleading and setting the child and the clients up for disappointment, it is not the law. The only way that the law allows the court to take substantive testimony (other than the Jethrow examination) outside the presence of the parties is with their express agreement on the record. MCA § 93-5-17 mandates that divorce proceedings be had in open court. MCA § 93-5-21 allows the court to exclude persons from the court room during a divorce trial ” … except the officers of the court, attorneys engaged in the case, parties to the suit and the witness being examined.” The rule should apply in modifications and contempts, since they are no more than an extension of the divorce trial. Moreover, the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that a party not be excluded involuntarily from his or her own trial.
If you need the child’s testimony to prove a crucial element of your case, ask to make an offer of proof on the point before the court undertakes its Jethrow examination so that the judge will know what it is you are trying to prove and how much weight it carries. If there are other witnesses who can establish the same facts, opt instead to call them.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 