Practice and Procedure | The Better Chancery Practice Blog

Bluewater Again in the COA

February 17, 2016 § Leave a comment

Only last week I posted about a COA decision in which the court cited the Bluewater Logistics case for the proposition that the trial judge’s verbatim adoption of a party’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law no longer triggers either heightened scrutiny nor less deference on the part of the appellate court.

That mention, in Carlson v. Brabham, was merely a comment by the court.

Then, last Tuesday, the COA actually had occasion to address the same principle raised in an appellant’s assignment of error.

In Stallings v. Allen, handed down February 9, 2016, Kenneth Stallings appeared pro se in response to a R81 pleading filed by Meeka Allen charging him with contempt and requesting an upward modification of child support. The chancellor rejected his request for a continuance and let the hearing go forward. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge ordered both sides to present proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which they did.

The chancellor adopted Meeka’s proposed findings, and, as a result, Kenneth was: found in contempt; ordered to provide dental insurance for his child; ordered to pay medical expenses; had judgments in excess of $6,500 assessed against him; and was ordered to pay attorney’s fees; and had his child support increased. All in all, it was not a particularly good day for Kenneth in court that day.

Kenneth appealed — again pro se — raising several issues, one of which was that it was error for the chancellor to adopt the other side’s proposed findings. Judge Barnes addressed Kenneth’s homemade argument:

¶11. Kenneth cites in support of his argument Rice Researchers Inc. v. Hiter, 512 So. 2d 1259 (Miss. 1987); [Fn 1] however, this case held, and the Mississippi Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated, that “a trial court may adopt verbatim, in whole or part, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of a party.” Id. at 1266; Chamblee v. Chamblee, 637 So. 2d 850, 858 (Miss. 1994); Omnibank v. United S. Bank, 607 So. 2d 76, 82-83 (Miss. 1992). Such action is within the trial court’s discretion and is not “reversible error in and of itself.” Hiter, 512 So. 2d at 1265 (citations omitted). The usual standard of review applies: “This Court will not disturb the findings of the chancellor when supported by substantial evidence unless the chancellor has abused his discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or an erroneous legal standard was applied.” Thomas v. Scarborough, 977 So. 2d 393, 397 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So. 2d 623, 625-26 (¶18) (Miss. 2002)). Further, the “heightened scrutiny” standard cited by Meeka no longer applies. The supreme court has held “our duty requires us in every case to be as careful and as sensitive to error as we can be, and we cannot condone a standard that allows us to be less sensitive to error in one case than another.” Bluewater Logistics LLC v. Williford, 55 So. 3d 148, 156 (¶27) (Miss. 2011). The trial court’s reliance on the party’s findings will not be deemed error if substantial evidence exists to support those findings. Thomas, 977 So. 2d at 396 (¶10) (citing Sanderson, 824 So. 2d at 625-26 (¶8)).

[Fn 1] Kenneth also cites in support Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-7-87 concerning “circuit court” practice, but that code section was repealed in 1991.

¶12. Here, there was no procedural error for the chancery court to adopt verbatim Meeka’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. As stated in the past, “[t]his Court recognizes the complexities and nuances of individual cases, which in addition to crushing trial court caseloads necessitate substantial reliance upon the on submissions of trial counsel. Id. (citing Hiter, 512 So. 2d at 1266).

Aside from the fact that proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are more work, I wonder why more lawyers don’t offer to do them. As I have posted here before, it can be an unequalled opportunity to write the final judgment in the case.

A Bluewater Bravo

February 9, 2016 § 3 Comments

The old rule that, if a trial judge in a ruling adopts one party’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law verbatim, her ruling is subject to less deference and greater scrutiny was abolished several years ago in the Bluewater Logistics case. I’ve posted about it here and here.

Now the COA has joined the party, so to speak, in the case of Carlson v. Brabham, decided January 19, 2016, in which the chancellor had adopted one party’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law verbatim. Although it was not expressly assigned as error, Judge Griffis took the opportunity to make this pronouncement:

¶12. Further, the supreme court has held that appellate courts must “apply the familiar abuse-of-discretion standard to a trial judge’s factual findings, even where the judge adopts verbatim a party’s proposed findings of fact.” Bluewater Logistics LLC v. Williford, 55 So. 3d 148, 157 (¶32) (Miss. 2011).

Hear, hear!

Directed Verdict vs. Involuntary Dismissal

February 2, 2016 § 1 Comment

After the plaintiff or petitioner has rested in a chancery court bench trial, the defendant may move to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff or petitioner has proven no right to relief. That is an involuntary dismissal, pursuant to MRCP 41(b), commonly referred to as a “41(b) motion.”

In a jury trial, a party may move for a directed verdict at the close of the other party’s case. That is a motion for directed verdict per MRCP 50(a).

The two are entirely different creatures. A 41(b) motion has no place in a jury trial, and a motion for directed verdict has no place in a bench trial.

The distinction was noted in the recent COA case, Carlson v. Brabham, handed down January 19, 2016. Judge Griffis explained:

¶10. “In a non-jury trial, such as this case, the appropriate motion is not a motion for [a] directed verdict pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 50; instead, the correct motion is a motion for [an] involuntary dismissal pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” Partlow v. McDonald, 877 So. 2d 414, 416 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (citation omitted) (citing Buelow v. Glidewell, 757 So. 2d 216, 220 (¶12) (Miss. 2000)). In this case, Brabham filed a Rule 50 motion for a directed verdict, rather than a Rule 41(b) involuntary-dismissal motion.

¶11. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that in situations such as this, an appellate court must:

[C]onsider th[e] appeal based on the correct standard of review, which under Rule 41(b) is different than the standard of review applicable to a motion for a directed verdict under Rule 50. In considering a motion for [an] involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b), the trial court should consider the evidence fairly, as distinguished from in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and the [trial court] should dismiss the case if it would find for the defendant. On appeal, [an appellate court] must apply the substantial evidence/manifest error standard to an appeal of a grant or denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to [Rule 41(b)].

Id. at 416-17 (¶7) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (citing Miss. Real Estate Comm’n v. Geico Fin. Servs. Inc., 602 So. 2d 1155, 1156 n.1 (Miss. 1992)).

As I have pointed out here before, if you proceed under the wrong rule in chancery, you are inviting either of two unappetizing results: (a) the chancellor may overrule your motion because there is no such thing as directed verdict in a chancery bench trial; or (b) the chancellor may apply the wrong standard to the proof, and you could find yourself boomeranged back to chancery on a remand that you created by your own inattention to the distinction.

Mopping Up After the Divorce

January 11, 2016 § 2 Comments

What do you do when the divorce trial is concluded, the final judgment has been entered, and the post-trial motions have been disposed of? If there’s not going to be an appeal, you just make sure your bill is paid, shake your client’s hand, usher him to the door, wish him luck, say farewell, and shut the door behind him, right?

Well, not exactly.

Do you know whether your client still has his ex-wife named in his will? What about as beneficiary of his life insurance, or survivor on his IRA or 401(k)? Does he still have his ex as POD or survivor on any checking or securities accounts?

I read an article written by a financial advisor recently in which she related an encounter with a newly-married couple, both of whom had been divorced several years before. Both husband and wife had wills that still named ex-spouses as beneficiaries, and the same with life insurance and retirement accounts. When she asked them why they had not been changed, both replied that no one had advised them that they should.

A case in my court recently brought up a similar problem. The wife in the divorce case insisted that she owned the marital residence because the PSA in her 2007 divorce (more than 8 years ago) provided that her ex would execute a special warranty deed conveying his interest to her. Only problem: he never did. So, since May of 2007 she has remained a joint tenant with right of survivorship with that man. If she had died before he tended to that little bit of finish-work, her estate would have to pay another lawyer to do what her divorce lawyer should have done in the first place, and it probably would have involved courtroom billable hours.

Years ago, a man hired me to obtain a QDRO to divide his 401(k) account. He had represented himself in the divorce that took place nearly ten years before. When the divorce was final, he had asked the lawyer who represented his wife how to go about getting the retirement account divided. The lawyer pointed out that he did not represent him, and virtually slammed the door in his face. When the client at last decided to get remarried, he thought that it was time to get the matter tended to, so he hired me. Here is how the PSA read:

The parties agree that wife shall receive the sum of $60,000 from Husband’s 401(k) account.

That was all it said. [For a post on what that 401(k) language should have included, click here]

So we filed a petition for the court to enter a QDRO for her to receive exactly that — $60,000. After being served with process, she went back to her divorce lawyer, who called me and pounded the table, insisting that she was entitled to ten years’ worth of interest. I pointed out that the agreement he had drafted did not have a time frame for payment, that neither party was obligated by the agreement to prepare a QDRO, that there was no interest provision, and that the only definite thing about it was the amount. He called me back a few days later and said his client was willing to settle for the $60,000, and they signed the QDRO, which was entered and the matter finalized. For ten years my client earned money using his ex’s money. Had her lawyer acted in her best interest, he would have gotten that QDRO entered immediately after the divorce judgment.

You might well ask, as I did when my client first hired me, why was his ex not screaming for her money? Well, in the ten years after the divorce she asked him about once a year if he still had her money. She was satisfied with his answers, but apparently no one ever advised her what she was losing by not getting that QDRO entered.

You might also inquire whether my client was unjustly enriched. I would agree that he was, indeed, enriched, but not unjustly so. He did not sleep on his rights. He did not draft the agreement. It was not his obligation to calculate her separate interest. She was wise to want to settle for the principal sim, because if she had wanted to obtain a court ruling that he had been unjustly enriched, and directing him to disgorge any interest received on her money, she would have had to pay the attorney to pursue it, and likely would have had to pay a CPA to calculate the interest and testify as an expert. After paying those folks, she would be lucky if she got to walk away with the $60,000.

Another nightmare scenario involves credit cards. I represented a man in a routine irreconcilable differences divorce. The PSA provided that each would pay the debts in his or her own name, as well as debts incurred in the name of or against the credit of the other. Thank goodness for that specific language, because he came in a year or so later with a letter from a credit card company reporting that an account in joint ownership was in default and making demand on him to pay more than $10,000. Turns out that shortly before the separation his wife had opened one of those accounts the company had solicited by mail, signing her husband’s name, and kept the account concealed from him. Then, after the divorce, she used it to supplement her income. We notified her that she had so many days to pay the account in full or we would sue. She borrowed money from her family, paid it off, and the account was closed. My client’s credit rating took a hit, but that and a modest legal fee were his total damages.

Lesson learned: it might not be a bad idea in the course of a divorce case to have your client run a credit check.

All of this boils down to a simple professional consideration that I have mentioned many times here: When the case is concluded, your client wants to be finally done with it, and she does not want to have to pay another attorney to clean up after you.

Actually, many of these things can be tended to before the divorce is concluded. That deed can be prepared, joint accounts closed, wills changed, bills of sale signed, agreed QDRO signed by the parties, and so on, with the originals held in the lawyer’s file until the judgment is entered.

When you are through with the divorce, help your client through the aftermath. Make sure she revokes all wills naming the ex as a beneficiary. Make sure there are no financial assets not covered by the divorce judgment that are joint, or have survivorship provisions. Make sure that there are no outstanding joint debts not addressed in the divorce. If a QDRO or deed is required for your client’s benefit, get it done ASAP. People are dying every day. You don’t want one of them to be the person you need to finish up your work.

The Primitive Lawyer

October 26, 2015 § Leave a comment

Suppose you had decided to build a new house. You give your plans to two different contractors and ask for an estimate and for details how they plan to do the job. After a week or so, you interview the two contractors. Here is what you learn:

Contractor 1 will use all up-to-date materials, power tools, and as few builders as necessary to accomplish the job. He will produce a structure and finish comparable in quality and price to the other recently-built homes in the neighborhood. Construction will take about four months.
Contractor 2 avows that he uses only traditional construction materials and tools; no power gizmos. All nails and fasteners will be fashioned on-site by his own blacksmith. Lumber will be carved out of raw wood using adzes. Naturally, the use of traditional methods will require many extra hands. Because hauling of materials will be done by ox-cart, and materials will be prepared on the job, construction may take as much as two years, three tops. Oh, and he can’t project a price, but he will bill you as the work progresses.

So which contractor are you going to hire?

Lawyers are no different than those contractors. No matter how excellent your litigation skills and razor-sharp legal analysis, you are operating with a decided handicap if you are limiting yourself to 19th-century techniques of legal research, handling of pleadings and discovery, case management, and communication. Your dinosaurian ways will cost your client more for the same services that others are getting more promptly at lesser rates. Over time that will mean loss of clients and diminishing revenues.

It always tickles me to hear lawyers boast that “I don’t even know how to turn on a computer,” or “I don’t use email,” or “Social media? What’s that?” We live in an on-demand world. Clients are consumers of legal services just like Amazon customers are consumers of commodities. They expect an acceptable level of service right now. They order goods and services online and get their digital products instantly, and physical items in a day or two. They communicate via twitter, text, FB Messenger, and email. That’s especially true of 20’s and 30’s legal consumers, who are used to instantaneous communication and information. They have no patience for paper-and-pencil and snail mail.

Just as dangerous as no knowledge of technology is inadequate knowledge of technology. If you don’t have a clue as to how FaceBook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, and all their ilk work, how can you mine those sources for info, and how can you help mitigate your clients’ faux pas on their accounts? Likewise, before you click “send” to transmit that digital discovery to opposing counsel, have you made sure that all the metadata that might include attorney-client communications and other privileged information has been stripped out?

Failure to keep up and develop technical competence has its consequences, as this article from Lawyerist aptly points out.

Records of Regularly Conducted Activity

October 12, 2015 § 3 Comments

MRE 803(6) is an important exception to the hearsay rule. It allows you to admit into evidence certain documents even though they are in essence hearsay. The rule reads this way:

Records of Regularly Conducted Activity. A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions or diagnosis, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness or self-authenticated pursuant to Rule 902(11), unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. The term “business” as used in this paragraph includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.

The document is admissible (1) if the information recorded was by a person with knowledge, and (2) the document was kept in the course of regular business activity, and (3) keeping such information in that form was the regular practice of the entity.

It is not necessary for every person who participated in compiling the data to come to court to testify about it to make it admissible. It can be authenticated by a “custodian or other qualified witness,” or it can be self-authenticated, as we will discuss below.

The court will determine whether the source and method of preparation are trustworthy enough to support admissibility.

Self-authentication is covered in MRE 902. To put it in simple terms, self-authentication means either that

The document itself bears insignia or signs of authenticity so that a custodian or other person is not necessary to identify it and establish its authenticity. Some examples are set out in the rule, and you can expand on those to come up with other categories of documents to authenticate in this fashion.
The document is accompanied by a certificate of authenticity as provided in MRE 902(11). This category is a little more ticklish to accomplish, so we will look at it in greater detail.

MRE 902(11) provides as follows:

(A) The records of a regularly conducted activity, within the scope of Rule 803(6), about which a certificate of the custodian or other qualified witness shows (i) the first hand knowledge of that person about the making, maintenance and storage of the records; (ii) evidence that the records are authentic as required by Rule 901(a) and comply with Article X; and (iii) that the records were (a) made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters; (b) kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity; and (c) made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice. Such records are not self-authenticating if the sources of
information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.

(B) As used in this subsection, “certificate” means, (i) with respect to a domestic record, a written declaration under oath or attestation subject to the penalty of perjury; and, (ii) with respect to records maintained or located in a foreign country, a written declaration signed in a foreign country which, if falsely made, would subject the maker to criminal penalty under the laws of that country. A certificate relating to a foreign record must be accompanied by a final certification as to the genuineness of the signature and the position in the regularly conducted activity of the executing individual as is required for certification of Foreign Public Documents by subsection (3) of this rule.

So to comply with this part of MRE 902(11) you must file an affidavit under criminal penalty of perjury that the affiant swears that all of the requirements of MRE 803(6) are satisfied, and that the affiant is a person who could establish authenticity if he or she were to testify. You should track the language in both paragraphs in drafting your affidavit. Note that if the affidavit is by a person in a foreign country you must comply with MRE 902(3).

Now that you have done all that, there is more that you need to do to make the document(s) admissible at trial. MRE 902(11)(C) is critical:

(C) (i) Records so certified will be self-authenticating only if the proponent gives notice to adverse parties of the intent to offer the records as self-authenticating under this rule and provides a copy of the records and of the authenticating certificate. Such notice must be given sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing at which they will be offered to provide the adverse party a fair opportunity to consider the offer and state any objections. (ii) Objections will be waived unless, within fifteen days after receiving the notice, the objector serves written specific objections or obtains agreement of the proponent or moves the court to enlarge the time. (iii) The proponent will be responsible for scheduling a hearing on any objections and the court should hear and decide such objections before the trial or hearing at which they will be offered. If the court cannot rule on the objections before the trial or hearing, the records will not be self-authenticating. (iv) If in a civil case, on motion by the proponent after the trial
or hearing, the court determines that the objections raised no genuine questions and were made without arguable good cause, the expenses incurred by the proponent in presenting the evidence necessary to secure admission of the records shall be assessed against the objecting party and attorney.

You must give timely notice to your opponent of your intent to offer the records under this rule, and if the opponent objects, you must set a hearing for the court to resolve the issue. Note the language of the rule: “Records so certified will be self-authenticating only if the proponent gives notice …” No notice = no self-authentication.

Sometimes lawyers agree on a handshake to let the document(s) in. That’s okay when it works, but every lawyer has a tale of woe about an opponent who said one thing in the halls of the courthouse two weeks ago, and then does not quite remember it the same way on the floor of the courtroom at trial. Better practice is to file that notice with a certificate of service. At a minimum, you should document the notice via email or regular mail. Any documentation is better than none, but some forms are better than others.

MRE 902 is a marvelous road map for how to get documents into evidence without a sponsoring witness, but you’d better follow it in every detail if you wish to succeed.

What’s your biggest rant about …

September 3, 2015 § 11 Comments

… scheduling cases for hearing in chancery court? How could we improve?

Comments by lawyers and judges are welcome and invited. You may post as anonymous or use a screen name, but you must include a valid email address so that I can verify that you are a member of the legal profession. Your email address will not appear.

No personal attacks. Please do not name particular lawyers or judges. Please be brief and to the point. All comments by persons who have not been approved before are moderated, so it may take a while for your comment to appear if it is approved.

Have at it.

[NOTE: If we have good participation, your rants on various topics may become a regular feature.]

The Unanswered Divorce Complaint

July 21, 2015 § 14 Comments

You have filed a divorce complaint for your client and had the defendant personally served per MRCP 4. Intelligence from your client leads you to believe that the defendant will not participate, so you put the file away and let the thirty days tick down.

On the twenty-ninth day, you receive a handwritten letter from the defendant neither admitting nor denying the allegations of the complaint. The defendant filed a copy of the letter in the case with the Chancery Clerk. You set the case for trial and, exercising prudence, give notice to the defendant of the day and time. You are still convinced that there will be no opposition since no bona fide answer or counterclaim has been filed, and, as your client indicated, the defendant is not likely to participate. You think it best to forego the trouble and expense of discovery.

On the day appointed for trial, you appear with your client and a single corroborating witness. The defendant, however, is there waiting for you, accompanied by competent counsel and a dozen or so supportive witnesses. The defendant is insisting on going forward with a trial right then and there. What to do?

Can the defendant present evidence contra the grounds for divorce, even though he did not file an answer? Yes, according Rawson v. Buta, 609 So.2d 426, 430-431 (Miss. 1992). The lack of an answer does not confess the allegations of the complaint per MRA 93-5-7. Because the allegations of the complaint are not taken as confessed, they always require adequate proof to sustain them, and the defendant may offer proof to rebut the plaintiff’s proof. The defendant may not, however, go outside the scope of the complaint, and may not put on proof supporting any affirmative relief.
You should ask for a continuance — on the record — and explain to the judge in detail why you need one and what were the presumptions on which you based your lack of discovery and other preparations for a trial. Bring to the attention of the court your lack of notice that the defendant would be represented, and what effect that had on your readiness for trial.
Don’t assume if you get your continuance that the 90 days for discovery per UCCR 1.10 has been extended. Ask for additional time and get a court order to that effect.
Was it ethical for that other lawyer to sandbag you like he did? I don’t see a specific ethical provision that was expressly violated, but it just seems to violate the spirit of RPC 3.4, as well as the preamble to the RPC. That kind of conduct does not pass the smell test, and would more than likely tip the scales in your favor for a continuance. In my experience, it’s the kind of conduct that causes hard feelings among attorneys in small communities and should be avoided. Defendant’s lawyer should have notified you when he was retained, or at least he should have filed an entry of appearance in the case and served it on you.
[Added after publication] As a last resort, you could just move to dismiss your client’s complaint per MRCP 41(a). That would stop this unpleasantness, but your client would have to start over, and there is an off-chance that she could be assessed some expenses of the defendant for showing up.

A Procedural Peculiarity

June 11, 2015 § Leave a comment

We’ve talked here many times about the R54(b) principle that, if the judgment disposes of fewer than all of the issues, it is not a final, appealable judgment unless the judge certifies so in the manner prescribed by the rule. We’ve sounded that theme so often that I’m not going to add links in this post. You can search them for yourself, if you care to.

It’s that principle that has me scratching my head over the COA case Wood, et al. v. Miller, decided June 2, 2015.

Donna Smith and Audrey Kemp filed a complaint in chancery court in 2004 to quiet and confirm title, to determine heirship, and to partition some 261 acres of land that had descended via heirship and devise to the parties named in the suit. They filed an amended complaint in 2007.

Following a hearing in 2009, the chancellor entered a judgment quieting and confirming title and ordering partition. The commissioners some time in 2010 filed a report detailing how the property could be divided into three shares.

In October, 2010, the defendants filed a separate pleading in the same civil action seeking to obtain title of all the property by adverse possession. The pleading was not styled as a counterclaim.

In May, 2012, the chancellor entered a judgment confirming the commissioners’ report, and ordered that the petitioners would have one share, the respondents another share, and another group of heirs the third share.

Afterward the plaintiffs filed a pleading asking for a judgment for waste based on the defendants’ refusal to allow the land to be rented during the litigation. At the hearing on that pleading, the question arose about the pending adverse-possession claim that had never been addressed. The attorney for the defendants announced that he would schedule a hearing on the matter at a later date. He never did. The chancellor entered judgment against the defendants for waste for more than $90,000.

The defendants appealed, raising only two issues: (1) that the chancellor erred when she ruled that two of the petitioners had inherited Thornton Miller’s interest in the property through the will of Thornton’s widow, Magnolia; and (2) that they had adversely possessed the property. They did not otherwise contest the heirship determination, the partition, or the judgment for waste. It does not appear from the opinion that they raised any issue as to the original judgment quieting and confirming title.

In its opinion, the COA, by Judge Roberts, pointed out, quite accurately, that any issue of invalidity of Magnolia’s will had not been raised before the chancellor; nor could it, because MCA 91-7-23 requires such claims be brought within two years of probate of the contested will, and not later. Magnolia’s will had been probated in 1986, so the claim as to the will’s invalidity was untimely and barred by the statute. On those grounds, then, the COA refused to review the issue on appeal.

This was unquestionably the right conclusion as to issue (1).

As for the adverse possession claim, issue (2), the court concluded that, since it had never been presented to the chancellor for review, the issue was not properly before it, and refused to entertain this issue also.

With this issue, I have this question: since the judgment of the trial court disposed of fewer than all of the issues, should the COA have accepted jurisdiction over the appeal in the first place? R54(b) provides:

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, 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 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 of 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 entry of the judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.

Since the adverse possession issue is still pending as a claim in this case, was there a final, appealable judgment, or should the COA have rejected jurisdiction? Well, no matter, I think that the COA reached the proper conclusion because:

You can not adversely possess against co-owners. The determination of heirship resolved the issue of Magnolia’s bequest and ownership, making all of the parties co-owners. Even if the matter had been properly presented at hearing to the chancellor, it did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Any adverse possession claim should have been presented as a compulsory counterclaim to the claim to quiet and confirm, per R13. The reason for the rule is to prevent the very thing that was attempted in this case.
The chancery court’s order quieting and confirming disposed of any adverse possession claims.
This matter was pending in the trial court for nine years. If you haven’t demanded a hearing on your claims you should not have the right to ask or demand that the court deal with it later. You’re already late enough.

In other words, the outcome would not have changed. Just to be clear … I agree with the court’s ruling in this case. I just thought it presented a peculiar set of issues and procedures that would be of some interest.

Playing with Dynamite

May 12, 2015 § 2 Comments

If a husband and wife came into your office and wanted you to represent them both in an ID divorce, what would you say? I think, and would hope, that the vast majority of us would decline on ethical grounds and offer to represent only one, not both.

How would it work, anyway, to represent both parties? You could put them in separate rooms and shuttle between. You could run to one room and advise the husband against agreeing to pay any alimony, and then run to another room and advise the wife to hold out until the husband agrees to alimony. Absurd? I’ll say.

Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 1.7 precludes representation of opposing parties in litigation unless certain conditions are met. Ethics Opinion number 80 of the Bar issued March 25, 1983, makes it clear that joint representation in an irreconcilable differences divorce is unethical:

The Committee is, therefore, of the opinion that the representation of both parties to a no-fault divorce violates the Rule 1.7, MRPC, and that it is, therefore, unethical for a lawyer to undertake such multiple representation.

How to handle it is set out in this language of the Opinion:

There is nothing wrong at all with one of the parties to a No-Fault Divorce being without an attorney, so long as that party, either H or W is properly informed by the spouse’s attorney that (1) that party is not represented by the spouse’s attorney, (2) the spouse’s attorney will not undertake to advise that party on any aspect of the case as to his or her rights, and (3) that party has a right to obtain an attorney to advise him or her and to review any of the agreements, pleadings or decrees which will be prepared. See Rule 4.3, MRPC.

A recent COA case involved dual representation and a challenged outcome. Leta Collins and Kenneth Collins were divorced from each other in 2011. They had filed a joint complaint for divorce on the sole ground of irreconcilable differences. The pleading stated that “The parties together have been represented by [Name of the Attorney], and was signed by that attorney as “Counsel for Leta D. Collins and Kenneth J. Collins.” In the PSA, which was approved by the court, Leta relinquished all interest in Kenneth’s financial assets and retirement.

More than a year later, Leta discovered that she had not known of more than $500,000 in financial assets that Kenneth had at the time of the divorce. She filed a R60 motion, but she did not allege that a fraud had been committed. The chancellor denied the motion, and Leta appealed.

In the case of Collins v. Collins, decided May 5, 2015, the COA affirmed. Judge Fair wrote this for the court:

¶24. Leta argues that the marital property was not equitably distributed because she and Kenneth were represented by the same attorney during the divorce. She alleges that her lack of independent advice and counsel led her to sign the unfair PSA.

¶25. The joint complaint for divorce states “[t]he parties together have been represented by M. Chadwick Smith,” and it was signed by Smith as “attorney for” both parties. Leta testified she and Kenneth believed they were represented by the same attorney. Leta argues this was a direct violation of Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(a), which prohibits representation of “a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client,” unless certain conditions are met.

¶26. The chancellor addressed this issue in her findings from the bench, stating that

when Mr. Chadwick Smith came in with his document, the final decree, I inquired of him who he represented because the divorce had the words that Ms. Collins’[s] counsel very ably draws to attention, that he represented both. And he stated, “I only prepared the paperwork, Judge. That’s what it says on there, ‘Prepared by.’” Only after the assurances of Mr. Chad Smith did I accept the parties’ divorce, and I signed the same on the 8th day of June 2011. Thus the allegations that Ms. Collins seeks to present that Mr. Collins committed a fraud on this court are fundamentally vested against Mr. Chad Smith.

¶27. Leta testified that she was the one who had actually prepared the PSA, based on her prior divorce papers, with some contributions from Kenneth. Kenneth likewise testified that Smith did not make any decisions for them. As the chancellor found, if Smith violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging in dual representation, it was not a sufficient basis to modify the divorce decree. This issue is without merit.

What saved the attorney here apparently was that the parties had specifically waived financial disclosures, and it was Leta, and not the lawyer, who prepared the PSA. Both parties acknowledged that the lawyer gave them no advice at all. It did not help Leta’s cause, if you read the rest of the opinion, that it took her a year and some months to seek the court’s assistance.

A few thoughts:

Don’t let anything about the peculiar facts in this case mislead you into believing it’s ever okay to represent both parties in an ID divorce. It’s not. Ever. It’s unethical. And if it’s unethical, it can cost you professionally. Don’t do it. Ever.
Any lawyer who states on a joint complaint for divorce that he represents both parties is asking for trouble. That in and of itself is a statement admitting an ethical violation.
I must be getting old (and I admit I am), but I am seeing more and more of people with JD after their names taking the position that “I only drafted papers for the parties,” or “I simply typed and submitted what they gave me,” or “this is what the client insists on doing.” Whatever happened to lawyers (JD’s) as counselors at law? Have lawyers gone from being legal advisors and guides to being high-priced clerk-typists? What is the point of having a lawyer when anyone with a word-processing program and a laptop can produce pleadings and an agreement? What is the point of having a lawyer if it is not to obtain legal advice? This trend, particularly among young people with JD after their names troubles me greatly. Notice that I said “JD after their names” and not lawyers. Just because you have JD after your name does not make you a lawyer. What makes you a lawyer is representing, protecting, and looking after the legal interests of a client. If all you’re doing is being a paying customer’s stooge, or acting as their clerk-typist, all you are is a JD, not a lawyer.
In this case, the parties themselves acquiesced in this awkward arrangement, which created an excuse for it under MRPC. Had they not, I think Ms. Collins had a legitimate beef, and maybe a viable lawsuit against their joint lawyer. But although it gets the lawyer out of this particular bind, I don’t think that the parties’ acquiescence can excuse this ethical breach. The lawyer, not the parties. has the higher duty and is ethically bound.
If you ever draft a joint complaint, make doubly, triply sure that you make it clear which party you represent, and that you have not, and will not provide the unrepresented party with any legal advice, and that she has the right to have attorney advise him or her and to review any of the agreements, pleadings or decrees which will be prepared.
Better yet: never, ever, ever, ever file a joint complaint for divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences.
And, for Pete’s sake, be an attorney and advise your client. That’s what you went to law school for.
Play fast and loose with the ethical rules and you are playing with dynamite.

Where Am I?