Rule 4 or Rule 81?
September 6, 2017 § 9 Comments
Yesterday we discussed Lewis v. Pagel, the June 1, 2017, MSSC case that changed Mississippi divorce law with respect to venue.
Can anyone tell me what is wrong with this statement from the opinion:
¶34. It is uncontested in the record that Drake did not answer Tonia’s complaint for divorce. While Drake was not required to do so, he was permitted to do so under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 81. M.R.C.P 81(d)(4); see also M.R.C.P. 12. Drake certainly could have responded to Tonia’s complaint and challenged venue. Instead, Drake chose to litigate the entire divorce and several ancillary matters, including several appeals, before raising his venue objection once a contempt judgment appeared imminent.
I’ll revisit this next week.
Where to Publish
November 30, 2015 § 4 Comments
Sometimes you just have to publish. It may be to complete service of process, or it may be notice to creditors in an estate, or it may be notice of a foreclosure sale. How and where do you publish notice?
Of course, when in doubt, read the rule or statute that applies. But that’s an overly-optimistic view. Some of you will stubbornly soldier on doing some of the most absurd things, like the attorney in a Lauderdale County guardianship recently who published process to the purported father in a Warren County newspaper because that was the man’s last-known county of residence. While that sounds a nice due-process tone, it just doesn’t meet the requirements of MRCP 4. So here are a few pointers:
Service of Process. Everything you need to know about publication process is in MRCP 4(c)(4). Subsection (B) of that rule requires that the publication be made “once each week during three successive weeks” in a newspaper of the county in which the pleading, account, or other proceeding is pending if there is such a newspaper. If there is no such newspaper, then you must post your notice on the courthouse door of the county, and publish it in the newspaper of an adjoining county or in a Jackson newspaper. I believe that the term “newspaper of the county” means one published in the county. That would be consistent with statutes requiring publication, and is the only common-sense interpretation at which I can arrive.
Remember that the courts strictly interpret the process rules. Close does not get you the cigar. You must strictly comply with the rules. There are many pitfalls awaiting those who try to slop through without attention to strict compliance, as I have posted about here before.
Notice to Creditors. MCA 91-7-145 requires that notice to creditors of an estate shall be made in “some newspaper in the county.” This publication requirement also applies in guardianships and conservatorships, per MCA 93-13-38(1). Section 91-7-145 goes on to say that “If a paper be not published in the county, notice by posting at the courthouse door and three (3) other places of public resort in the county shall suffice,” and you must file an affidavit attesting to the posting.
Before you publish, you must file an affidavit of the fiduciary that he or she has made a reasonably diligent effort to identify and give notice to persons who may have claims against the estate. Failure to file the affidavit before publication voids the publication.
Foreclosure. MCA 89-1-55 requires that a foreclosure sale be advertised for three consecutive weeks “in a newspaper published in the county, or, if none is so published, in some paper having a general circulation therein,” and by posting the notice at the courthouse. The statute specifies that the land must be sold in the county where it is located, or the county of the residence of the one of the grantors, or, where the property is situated in more than one county, where the parties have contracted for the sale. Where a city extends into more than one county, a newspaper published in the city is deemed to be published in all the counties into which the city extends. Warren v. Johnston, 908 So.2d 744, 748-49 (Miss. 2005).
Electronic Service of Process
May 14, 2015 § 7 Comments
An attorney recently asked me whether he could effect service of process via email. It seems that the proposed defendant would communicate with the attorney’s client by email, but kept his address and whereabouts to himself.
My response was that there is no provision in MRCP 4 for electronic process, and until there is, he and his client should make diligent inquiry to ascertain the same, and obtain process by publication.
Later I stumbled across MEC rule § 3.F.3:
A party may not electronically serve a summons and complaint, but must perfect service according to M.R.C.P. 4 or 81, as applicable.
That covers that.
Also, MEC rule § 6.A.2 requires summonses and complaints to be issued by conventional means.
At first blush, electronic summonses and subpoenas would appear to be the next electronic innovation, since email is so ubiquitous. The flaw in it, however, is that there is no guarantee that the recipient of the email is actually the person who owns the email account. Due process requires that a person have actual notice of the filing of the suit, and an opportunity to be heard. Personal service fulfills those requirements, and publication constructively does it. Email leaves open the possibility that a judgment could be set aside because the recipient was not the addressee. Until that possibility is eliminated somehow by the technical folks, we will have to stay our current course.
A Publication Hiccup
February 3, 2015 § 2 Comments
Last week the Meridian Star newspaper failed to publish legal notices scheduled for Tuesday, apparently by oversight. The paper called the lawyers who had had items scheduled and offered to republish any way the lawyers directed.
This caused some heart palpitations that influenced two lawyers to seek out my position on the matter, since estates assigned to me were affected. Each were running second and third publications. They had directed the paper to publish on three consecutive Tuesdays, and were concerned about the variation in days.
Before getting to a response, let’s look at the two most commonly invoked provisions on point:
- MCA 91-7-145(2) states that notice to creditors in an estate, conservatorship, or guardianship ” … shall be published for three consecutive weeks.” The requirement clearly is that the publication be made once in each of three consecutive weeks. The day is immaterial.
- MRCP 4((a)(4)(b) for process by publication is even clearer. It specifically provides that ” … publication of said summons shall be made once in each week during three consecutive weeks …” Again, the specific day of the week is immaterial.
So the answer, simply, is that so long as the paper publishes your notice or process one time in each of three consecutive weeks, regardless of the days when the notices are published, you have met the requirement of the statute and the rule.
There are other notice statutes. When you must comply with one, follow the express language of the statute.
Sometimes we get caught up in old habits, like telling the clerk at the paper to “Run this the next three Wednesdays …” and that’s how we always do it because that’s how we’ve always done it. But it’s the specific language of the statute or rule that controls, not force of habit.
Divorce Defendant in Default
December 4, 2014 § Leave a comment
Larry Bolivar filed for divorce from his wife, Teresa, on February 19, 2013. She was served with process on March 21, 2013. The R4 process was in the usual form that included the admonishment to file an answer within 30 days, or the relief requested could be granted.
On May 8, 2013, Teresa had filed no response to the divorce complaint, and Larry appeared in court and presented his case. The chancellor granted him a divorce from her.
In June, 2013, Teresa filed a motion to set aside the divorce, an answer denying the allegations of the complaint, and a counterclaim for divorce. In her motion to set aside the divorce, she complained that she had not been properly served with a summons or notice of hearing for the May 8, 2013, proceeding.
At the hearing on her motion to set aside the divorce judgment, Teresa acknowledged that she had been served with process on the complaint, and the judge found on that point that she had been served with process. As to her argument that she should have been given notice of the May hearing, the chancellor denied the motion on the basis that her failure to file an answer precluded her from asserting that claim. Teresa appealed.
On appeal, Teresa raised for the first time the issue whether Larry should have had her declared to be in default per MRCP 55 before proceeding against her.
In the case of Bolivar v. Bolivar, decided November 25, 2014, the COA affirmed the chancellor’s rulings. Judge Ishee wrote the opinion for the court.
On the issue of whether Teresa was entitled to notice, pursuant to MRCP 5, of the May hearing, the court said this:
¶11. Rule 5(a), in pertinent part, provides that “every written notice . . . shall be served upon each of the parties.” Nonetheless, Rule 5(a) also states that “[n]o service need be made on parties in default for failure to appear[.]” At the hearing regarding Teresa’s motion to set aside the divorce judgment, Teresa testified that she was served properly with process. Although she contends that she had obtained an attorney whom she believed was handling her case, the record does not reflect that any action was taken on her behalf in the thirty days following her receipt of the summons. As such, she was in default for failing to answer or appear. Nonetheless, Teresa argues that she was not properly declared in default pursuant to Rule 55.
As to whether she was properly declared in default per MRCP 55:
¶12. Rule 55 governs default judgments, and provides that when a party “has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter his default.” M.R.C.P. 55(a). However, “[i]f the party against whom judgment by default is sought has appeared in the action, he [or his representative] shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment at least three days prior to the hearing of such application[.]” M.R.C.P. 55(b). Teresa contends that Larry should have applied for an entry of default with the chancery clerk or applied for a default judgment in the chancery court. She maintains that his failure to declare her in default meant that she was not in default and his duty to serve her notice remained intact. As such, she argues that the judgment in his favor is void. We disagree.
¶13. This rule is “not directly applicable” to divorce proceedings. Stinson v. Stinson, 738 So. 2d 1259, 1262 (¶12) (Miss. 1999). Specifically, the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that a judgment entered in an action for divorce following a defendant’s failure to answer is “a special kind of default judgment.” Id. at 1263 (¶13) (quoting Mayoza v. Mayoza, 526 So. 2d 547, 548 (Miss. 1988)). A defendant’s failure to answer does not drag a divorce case to a halt. Instead, the plaintiff must, at a hearing, prove the allegations that support the receipt of a divorce. If that is done, then the chancellor has authority to grant the divorce despite the absence of the defendant. Id. at (¶15). This reasoning is supported by Rule 55(e), which provides that “unless the claimant establishes his claim or rights to relief by evidence,” a default judgment will not be entered in a suit for divorce. “Furthermore, a divorce will not be granted on the uncorroborated testimony of the claimant.” Lindsey v. Lindsey, 818 So. 2d 1191, 1194 (¶13) (Miss. 2002).
¶14. Since Teresa failed to answer or appear, we find that she was in default and not owed notice of the divorce hearing. Further, after a review of the record, we find that Larry established his claim to a judgment of divorce despite Teresa’s absence. Larry’s testimony, in addition to the corroborating testimony of Parker, clearly established a divorce on the grounds of desertion. As such, we find this issue is without merit.
Note that if the defendant does enter a timely appearance, and then stops participating, you must give the defendant notice of further proceedings per R5.
MRCP 4(h) and the Divorce Complaint
October 27, 2014 § Leave a comment
We talked here last week about the applicability of MRCP 4(h) to R81 actions. Whichever side of that particular issue you come down on, you need to be aware that, yes indeed, R4(h) does apply to divorce complaints. And it can bite you in uncomfortable regions of your anatomy if you’re not careful.
In Webster v. Webster, 834 So.2d 26 (Miss. 2003), Charles Webster had left his wife, Jean, and moved to Texas, where he obtained a divorce judgment against her.
On October 5, 1999, Jean filed her own action in Mississippi, claiming that Texas never obtained personal process on her, and that she had never lived in Texas. She attempted several times unsuccessfully to effect certified mail process. On February 8, 2002, she filed a motion to allow out-of-time service of process, which the chancellor granted, finding that good cause existed to allow an additional 120 days.
On June 21, 2000, outside the 120-day extension, Jean filed an amended complaint and issued a new summons. Charles was served with process on July 3, 2000. On October 30, 2000, the chancellor entered a judgment granting alimony and other relief that Charles found distasteful enough that he filed a R60 motion complaining that the court did not have personal jurisdiction because of the out-of-time process. The chancellor overruled the motion, and Charles appealed.
The MSSC reversed and remanded.
Was Jean’s motion for extension of time untimely? Jean waited until after the initial 120 days had run before she filed for additional time. The court took note of a split of authority in other states, but noted that there is nothing in the rules that requires filing a motion for extension within 120 days. It did point out that a diligent attorney should file within the 120 days, and would actually support a finding in favor of the extension.
Did Jean show good cause for not meeting the 120-day requirement? The court said no. You can read the opinion for yourself, but to me there are two salient points to take away: (1) Jean did not support her motion with affidavits, which would have made a record; and (2) You have to make a convincing effort to find and serve the defendant; a few random, half-hearted stabs at it will not suffice.
I also wonder whether that amended complaint was done properly. We’ve talked about that here before.
The moral of this story is that failure to get process on a defendant within 120 days of filing your complaint is one of those fatal problems that can lurk in your record until it rises, zombie-like via a R60 motion, and then on appeal, causing you to lose a case you and your disappointed client had thought you had won.
Do you think this is an academic point you’re not likely to see in your lifetime? Not so fast, my friend. The following scenario happens every day: You file a complaint for divorce on HCIT and alternatively on ID, anticipating, based on your client’s confidence, that everything will be worked out swimmingly. After six months the defendant still has not come to terms — and he has not been served with process. Finally, you issue process and get the case moving. Your 192-day process is ticking away in your case like a time bomb.
Best practice is to wait no longer than 60-90 days to get a waiver and agreed PSA. Immediately after that, have the defendant served with process. You can then continue to attempt a settlement, but R4(h) will no longer be a concern.
Publication Process When the P.O. Address of the Defendant is Stated
August 4, 2014 § 3 Comments
It can’t be overstated that the process requirements of MRCP 4 must be satisfied in every particular in order for the court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. There is no such thing as “close is good enough.” There are plenty of cases that hold that even if you can prove that the absent party knew of the proceedings, unless that party was properly served with process, the court has no jurisdiction.
MRCP 4(4)(A) allows you to obtain process by publication if you allege by sworn complaint or petition, or by affidavit, that the defendant is a non-resident, or is not to be found in this state, after diligent inquiry.
If the party’s post office address is unknown, you can proceed from there.
But, if you have a last-known address, there are some technical requirements that trip up many lawyers.
R4(4)(C) says expressly: ” … Where the post office address of the absent defendant is stated, it shall be the duty of the clerk to send by mail (first class mail, postage prepaid) to the address of the defendant, at his post office, a copy of the summons and complaint and to note the fact of issuing the same and mailing the copy, on the general docket, and this shall be the evidence of the summons having been mailed to the defendant.”
The rule puts the duty on the clerk, but let’s think about that a minute. What is the penalty if the clerk fails to mail or note on the docket? The penalty is that you have to do it over … and over again … until it’s done right. So, what do you do?
I think you have a choice between two ways to go …
- You bring your own extra copy or copies, as many as necessary, along with postage, and help the clerk get those copies into the envelopes and ready to mail, first class, postage prepaid, and then you ask the clerk — politely — to note the fact on the record. The principle being that if you want something done right, you should … well, you know the rest.
- You can whine and complain about how unjust and unfair this is. In the meantime, your client is stuck on the starting line, waiting for you to effect process.
The 4(h) Club
July 24, 2014 § Leave a comment
No, I’m not talking about raising livestock and watermelons. I’m talking about how you can get clubbed by operation of MRCP 4(h), which can raise some nasty lumps.
R 4(h) states:
If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint and the party on whose behalf such service was required cannot show good cause why such service was not made within that period, the action shall be dismissed as to that defendant without prejudice upon the court’s own initiative with notice to such party or upon motion.
The obvious peril of this rule is operation of the statute of limitations (SOL). If your complaint is dismissed and the statute runs before you can get it refiled, your proverbial goose is cooked. But it is equally parboiled if you fail to effect process within the 120-day period. Here’s what the MSSC said in the case of Holmes v. Coast Transit Auth., 815 So.2d 1183, 1185 (Miss. 2002):
Filing a complaint tolls the applicable statute of limitations 120 days, but if the plaintiff fails to serve process on the defendant within that 120-day period, the statute of limitations automatically begins to run again when that period expires. Watters v. Stripling, 675 So. 2d 1242, 1244 (Miss.1996). A plaintiff who does not serve the defendant within the 120 day period must either re-file the complaint before the statute of limitations ends or show good cause for failing to serve process on the defendant within that 120 day period; otherwise, dismissal is proper. Id. at 1244; Brumfield v. Lowe, 744 So. 2d 383, 387 (Miss. Ct. App.1999). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing good cause. M.R.C.P. 4(h).
That language is quoted in the recent MSSC decision in Lewis Entertainment Inc. d/b/a Extreme Skate Zone v. Brady, decided July 17, 2014.
In that case, the plaintiffs had failed to get process on Lewis within the 120 days, and the SOL ran the day after the 120-day period ended. The court noted that, under the rule, the only way for the plaintiffs to keep their action alive was to show good cause for failure to serve Lewis within the 120 days.Justice Lamar, for the unanimous court, set out what constitutes good cause:
¶9. To establish good cause, the plaintiff has the burden to show “at least as much as would be required to show excusable neglect, as to which simple inadvertence or mistake of counsel or ignorance of the rules does not suffice.” When making a good-cause determination, the following factors should be considered:
a. the conduct of a third person, typically the process server,
b. the defendant has evaded service of the process or engaged in misleading conduct,
c. the plaintiff acted diligently in trying to effect service or there are understandable mitigating circumstances, or
d. the plaintiff is proceeding pro se or in forma pauperis.
The Bradys are not proceeding pro se or in forma pauperis and nothing in the record suggests that their failure to timely serve Lewis is attributable to the conduct of a third person or to Lewis. The Bradys simply claim their failure to serve Lewis is justified by their attempts to serve Oak Grove. We disagree.
¶10. The Bradys waited until the last day of the 120-day period to attempt to serve Oak Grove. On that day, their process server learned that the Bradys had named the wrong defendant, but, instead of identifying the correct defendant, the Bradys continued to attempt service on the wrong party for two weeks. The Bradys also failed to request additional time to serve process until seventy days after the 120-day period expired and three weeks after they were informed that their case was going to be dismissed. And, even after they filed a motion for additional time, they failed to set it for hearing and have yet to name the proper defendant.
The court went on to hold that those facts did not constitute good cause that would save the plaintiffs’ case.
Lewis is an appeal from a county court case. In chancery, we do not routinely deal with statutes of limitation like they do in county and circuit courts. But for those chancery matters that do involve SOL, R 4(h) is as applicable here as it is in the law courts.
Beware of the club.
Some Ancient Publication Guidance that is Still Good Law
March 31, 2014 § 1 Comment
Process by publication bedevils attorneys perhaps more frequently and thoroughly than any other aspect of the law. It’s a subject we’ve touched on in numerous previous posts.
Before the advent of the MRCP, lawyers consulted the venerable Griffith on Mississippi Chancery Practice (1925), and Bunkley and Morse’s Amis, Divorce and Separation in Mississippi (1957), for guidance.
So what do those ancient treatises have to tell us about modern-day publication process? Here’s what the MSSC had to say about it in Caldwell v. Caldwell, 533 So.2d 413, 415-417 (Miss. 1988):
[MRCP 4(c)(4)(A)] is substantially the same as the formerly followed statute Miss.Code Ann. § 13-3-19 (Supp.1972). Therefore, the former judicial decisions and treatises interpreting what constitutes diligent search and inquiry to ascertain addresses of non-residents of Mississippi may be relied upon to analyze the instant case.
Among this jurisdiction’s oldest equity treatises is Griffith, Mississippi Chancery Practice, Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc. (1925) analyzing Mississippi’s requirements for summons by publication. Its applicability to this point of law is still apropos and is as follows:
§ 236 Requirements of publication statutes must be strictly observed.-It is the uniform and unbroken course of decision in this state that 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, and it being a jurisdictional matter it cannot be cured by a recital in the decree as against a direct proceeding attaching it; … and it is not enough merely to give the residence of defendant, it must give his postoffice address, if known, and if not known it must be stated that it is not *416 known after diligent inquiry. An affidavit to support process by publication must strictly comply with the statute and if it omit averment of diligent inquiry it is insufficient. The affidavit for publication when made by an agent must cover the knowledge of the principal as well as of the affiant, as for instance, if an attorney makes the oath for his client the oath should show whether the knowledge or information is that of the attorney or the client, and an oath to a bill upon which a publication to non-residents was predicated which recited that “the matters and things stated in the bill on his own knowledge are true and those stated on information he believes to be true” will not support the publication.
Mississippi Chancery Practice at 225-227. See also, Amis, Divorce and Separation in Mississippi, § 244 (1935); Bunkley and Morse’s Amis, Divorce and Separation in Mississippi, § 15.01(3) (1957). Bunkley’s work states also:
It seldom happens that the published notice is defective, but the usual trouble is that the averments of the affidavit, or sworn bill [i.e., pleadding], are insufficient to authorize any publication to be made at all. This arises out of a misconception of the purpose of the statute, or else a misunderstanding of its provisions. Publication for a non-resident, or absent defendant, is not a mere formal or perfunctory matter; but the purpose is to give the defendant actual as well as constructive notice of the suit and an opportunity to make defense thereto, if it be reasonably possible to do so. Due process of the law requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, and this applies to residents and non-residents alike when sued in the courts of this state. …
If he cannot be found in this state, and any fact in regard to his whereabouts and/or post office and street address be unknown to the complainant, then he or she must make an honest and diligent effort, or inquiry, to ascertain the same, so that when publication is made the clerk may send him a copy of the notice. Good faith to the court, as well as the statute, requires this to be done before any affidavit for publication is made. And if, at any stage of the proceedings, it should appear that such duty was not performed, and that the affidavit was not made in good faith after diligent inquiry under the facts of the particular case, the process should be quashed by the court, of its own motion, as a fraud on its jurisdiction; for courts sit to protect the rights of defendants as well as to enforce those of complainants.
Divorce and Separation in Mississippi at 283.
Judicial interpretations have given rise to these treatises by such cases as Ponder v. Martin, 119 Miss. 156, 80 So. 388 (1919); Diggs v. Ingersoll, 28 So. 825 (1900). In Mercantile Acceptance Corp. v. Hedgepeth, 147 Miss. 717, 112 So. 872 (1927), this Court stated regarding the requisite oath, as follows:
We are of opinion that the changes made in the statute with reference to the oath required to bring in by publication a nonresident defendant, are material changes; that they are vital and that they were intended to answer a wholesome purpose and will have the effect of doing so. If the complainant makes the oath that the post office address of the defendant is unknown to him, he ought to be required, as the statute does require, to go further and make oath that he has made diligent inquiry to ascertain his post office address; and if the oath is made by the complainant’s attorney that the post office address of the defendant is unknown, he ought to be required, as the statute does require, to state that he had made diligent inquiry to ascertain his post office address, that he believes it is unknown to the complainant, and that the latter has made diligent inquiry to ascertain the same.
Mercantile Acceptance Corp., 112 So. at 874.
Remember that the affidavit must be filed before any publication is undertaken, and it must include the required information. Publication before filing of the affidavit is a nullity. Process by publication that does not meet every technical requirement of the rule is a nullity that deprives the trial court of jurisdiction, unless the defendant enters a voluntary appearance.
Getting All the Heirs Aboard
February 13, 2014 § 4 Comments
Since 2010, it has been the common practice across the state for chancellors to require an heirship determination in intestate estates (some chancellors require it in testate estates also).
That’s because MCA 91-1-29 specifically requires it, as does MCA 91-7-293.
Most attorneys accomplish the requirement by filing a petition to determine heirs, publishing process for unknown heirs.
So, you have opened the estate and had your administratrix qualified. You joined the three siblings, and you have started publishing notice in the local newspaper for unknown heirs. Have you and your fiduciary done all that the law requires?
Not necessarily.
In the case of Estate of Thomas v. Thomas, 883 So.2d 1173, 1177 (Miss. 2004), the MSSC said this:
¶ 12. Under Mississippi case law, the administratrix of an estate is under a duty to use reasonable diligence to ascertain potential heirs. Smith ex rel. Young v. Estate of King, 579 So.2d 1250, 1252 (Miss.1991). See also In re Estate of Johnson, 705 So.2d 819, 822 (Miss.1996). Another duty of the administratrix is to provide notice to known or reasonably ascertainable illegitimate children who are potential heirs and whose claims would be barred if the 90-day statutory time period had run. King, 579 So.2d at 1253. Under Mississippi law, an administratrix acts as a fiduciary for all persons interested in the estate. Shepherd v. Townsend, 249 Miss. 383, 162 So.2d 878, 881 (1964). The administratrix has this duty of notice by statute. Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-29 (Rev.2004). In King, as here, the administratrix failed to notify the court of a reasonably ascertainable heir and failed to notify the heirs that the paternity claims would be barred if not timely filed.
MCA 91-1-15(3)(c) is a statute of limitations for claims of illegitimates against an estate, and in most circumstances that limitation does not begin to run until the illegitimate receives actual notice( be sure to read this statute).
So, let’s say that your client, the administratrix, actually knows that the decedent had an illegitimate child. If she conceals that fact from you, and it later comes to light, the administration of the estate, including any final judgment, closing, and disbursement, is subject to a finding of fraud on the court and consequent setting aside. And … there is no time limit on an action to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.
Likewise, if you and your fiduciary do not do due diligence to discover any illegitimates, your administration of the estate is in jeopardy from later claims of illegitimates who say that they were not properly noticed.
How do you protect yourself and the heirs? Some suggestions:
- Grill your client about who all the heirs might be, and ask whether there are any “outside children.” Ask if there has even been a suspicion that there might be illegitimates, and ascertain not only who they might be, but also who might be the father, the grandparents, aunts, uncles, or persons with knowledge. Investigate, make contact, ask questions.
- Get your client to sign an affidavit you can file with the court spelling out what knowledge the fiduciary has as to any illegitimates, and the diligent search and inquiry that has been done to identify and contact them.
- As a further measure of internal protection, you might want to compose a letter to your client recounting what he or she told you about illegitimates, and itemizing the efforts made to identify and contact them. Then have your client sign a file copy acknowledging receipt.
- Sometimes it happens that a person believed to be an illegitimate heir disclaims the heirship or any interest in the estate. If possible, get that person to sign a disclaimer of heirship and any interest in the estate, and file it with the court. If he or she refuses, have personal process served.
- If you unearth certain or purported illegitimate heirs, have them personally served with process and notice per MCA 91-1-15(3)(c) that his or claims will be barred unless filed within the statutory time.
- Be sure to include the names of any known or purported illegitimate heirs in your petition for determination of heirship and publication notice. Ask the court to adjudicate them not to be heirs unless they file a timely action per MCA 91-1-15(3)(c).
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 