Maxims: The Legal Chance to be Heard
October 22, 2013 § 1 Comment
“No one should be condemned without a legal chance to be heard.”
This concept is so fundamental to our notions of due process that it almost goes without saying. Judge griffith expounded on it this way:
This maxim is so clearly founded in natural justice that even savages would understand it, and every decent modern government observes it as an indispensible principle of constitutional right. A decree rendered in its absence is utterly void, as it ought to be. A decree in personam cannot be rendered without a personal appearance or without personal notice sereved within the territorial limits of the state, and a decree bearing upon personal property situated within the state but owned by a non-resident is not valid unless by some reasonable method to be prescribed by law the defendant is given notice by constructive process, such as notice by publication. Griffith, § 48, p. 50.
The MRCP modified process to allow personal service outside the boundaries of the state.
The principle is found consistently in our jurisprudence. If there is no personal jurisdiction, if there is no notice, the court may not act.
The one exception is MRCP 65 pertaining to temporary restraining orders (TRO) without notice. These are not favored, however, unless the circumstances are of such an emergency and exigent nature that relief must be granted immediately. Even in such cases, however, the TRO may be dissolved upon motion of the enjoined party on only two days’ notice, and in no event may extend by the initial order for more than ten days.
Rule 81 Confounded
July 17, 2013 § 10 Comments
This is my 40th year in the law. The past 6 1/2 years have been on the bench, dealing exclusively with chancery matters. Before that, 33 years in practice, primarily in chancery. In my 39 1/2 years of experience, 31 have been under the MRCP.
Until yesterday, with one exception, have I ever seen MRCP 81 applied as it was yesterday in Curry v. Frazier, decided by the COA.
The one exception is Pearson v. Browning, decided last Fall.
If these two cases are good law, and they are not anomalous, you will have to drastically change the way you do process in counterclaims in chancery court. In my opinion, together both cases say that once the plaintiff has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by filing a pleading, you must still get jurisdiction by R81 process over him in order to pursue your counterclaim. Yes, that’s jurisdiction times two.
Other chancellors I have talked to are scratching their heads. This is a new way to go at jurisdiction in chancery. Or is it? Has it been your experience that R81 works this way?
I wonder whether the COA has an agenda here.
PROCESS IN MEXICO
May 9, 2013 § 3 Comments
Attorney Joy Harkness of Legal Services in Meridian posted a comment to a post yesterday that raised an intriguing question — one that you might just bump into in your own practice, particularly with the numbers of migrant workers in our state.
Here’s the query:
“I am looking for assistance in serving process on a resident of Mexico. It is my understanding that process by publication is not valid under the Hague Service Convention if the address if the defendant is known. It is also my understanding that the summons has to be translated into Spanish. I am looking both for advice on the procedure and someone to provide the translation.”
Has anyone else run into this, or has anyone researched this?
I thought this should be in a post, where more folks might see it, rather than in a comment.
We have a notable number of divorces (almost all I.D. divorces) involving Latin-Americans, mostly Mexicans, in this district. They are as routine as any other I.D. divorces, but there are some with problems. I denied one father’s request for visitation because he could not provide a legitimate address, and claimed to have lost his passport. When I asked to see his DL, he produced a fake with a fake address. Since two witnesses had testified that he had said he wanted to take the children back to Mexico with him, I thought that he should be better documented before we did that.
HARD GARNISHMENT LESSON FOR A JOINT ACCOUNT OWNER
May 6, 2013 § Leave a comment
Dorothy Lang and Derrick Higgins were estranged husband and wife. Despite that they were living separate and apart, they maintained two joint bank accounts at the same bank, with Dorothy continuing to use the joint savings account, and Derrick continuing to use the joint checking account.
Derrick got behind in his child support payments to another woman — to the tune of $17,000 — and DHS in April, 2010, froze both joint accounts per MCA 43-19-48, imposing a lien on the deposits. When Dorothy discovered what had happened, her attorney sent a letter to DHS in May, 2010, advising them that the funds were Dorothy’s, not Derrick’s. DHS thoughtfully responded the next day with a letter pointing out that Dorothy was required by statute to file a petition with the court if she wished to challenge the lien.
Dorothy took no action immediately, and on June 17, 2010, DHS received $3,116.69 from the two accounts, no doubt causing Dorothy some economic distress. The date of the disbursement was more than 45 days after the freeze.
Finally, in September, 2010, Dorothy got around to filing a contest to the lien, and, at an evidentiary hearing, produced proof that most of the money seized was, indeed, hers, and not Derrick’s. The chancellor ordered DHS to refund Dorothy $2,000 of the money, and DHS appealed.
In DHS v. Lang, handed down by the COA on April 23, 2013, the COA reversed and rendered. Judge Fair’s opinion for a unanimous court, explained:
¶8. … [A]lthough the statute contemplates an account holder of interest challenging the encumbrance, it does not provide a method to do so. As written, the statute does not require DHS to send notice to joint account holders, and only the obligor is subject to any specific time for filing. Other states, such as Alabama and Texas, have specifically provided for the right of a joint account holder to challenge such an encumbrance and prove ownership of the funds. See Ala. Admin. Code r. 600-3-12-.06 (2011); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.326 (2001). We conclude that our Legislature intended to acknowledge an account holder of interest’s right to challenge a DHS encumbrance, but it did not create a new mechanism for such a challenge. Instead, the Legislature left that to independent actions, just as ordinary garnishment law does.
¶9. The Mississippi Supreme Court has considered the garnishment of joint accounts. In Delta Fertilizer, Inc. v. Weaver, 547 So. 2d 800 (Miss. 1989), Delta secured a judgment against Weaver, and the circuit clerk issued a writ of garnishment on a joint savings account in the names of Weaver, his sister, and his mother. Before the garnishment was awarded, the mother filed a motion with the court, claiming to be the sole owner of the account. Id. at 801. The mother testified that all the funds belonged to her and that her children’s names were on the account for convenience because she could not handle her own money anymore. Id. Citing Cupit v. Brooks, 237 Miss. 61, 112 So. 2d 813 (1959), the court noted that a joint checking or savings account was subject to garnishment but held that it “should be garnishable only in proportion to the debtor’s ownership of the funds.” Delta, 547 So. 2d at 802-03. The burden rests on each depositor to show what portion of the funds he actually owns, and parol evidence is admissible to show his contributions. Id. at 803.
¶10. Relying on the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in Delta, we agree that an account holder of interest may challenge a DHS encumbrance in an independent action and present evidence to prove her contribution to the funds. The depositors are in a much better position than DHS to know the pertinent facts regarding their joint account. And while the DHS Child Support Unit has a legislatively mandated charge to enforce child-support obligations, administratively and through litigation, we do not believe the Legislature intended to dismiss the interest of joint account holders. That being said, a joint account holder must file some formal pleading within a reasonable time. Otherwise, such funds obtained by DHS would always be subject to remittance, preventing the funds from being timely disbursed to impoverished children.
The court then turned to the question whether Dorothy’s letter to DHS or her petition filed nearly three months after the order disbursing funds was effective to regain her funds. The COA answered “no”:
¶12. This Court dealt with an analogous situation in Triplett v. Brunt-Ward Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac, GMC Trucks, Inc., 812 So. 2d 1061 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). There, a mother, Triplett, held an account with Union Planters and named her daughter as a joint account holder. Id. at 1063 (¶2). A garnishment was issued naming the daughter as the debtor. Id. Although Triplett admitted that she became aware of the attachment within two days of service of the writ of garnishment, but never intervened as a proper party. Id. at 1067 (¶13). After the funds were disbursed to the creditor, Triplett filed a complaint alleging Union Planters was negligent in its failure to notify Triplett that the funds were exempt. Id. at 1064 (¶4). On appeal, this Court explained that the garnishment statute “has been construed to mean that, in order to suspend the execution of the writ of garnishment, a sworn declaration must be filed in the court before the garnishee has answered and paid into court the funds caught by the garnishment.” Id. at 1067 (¶11) (citing Miss. Action for Cmty. Ed. v. Montgomery, 404 So. 2d 320, 322 (Miss. 1981)).
¶13. Here, DHS correctly presumed that all funds in the joint account belonged to Higgins and filed a notice of encumbrance [footnote omitted]. On May 27, DHS advised Lang to file a petition with the court pursuant to section 43-19-48 in order to object the encumbrance. While we disagree that Lang was required to file pursuant to section 43-19-48, she failed to file any petition to the court before the funds were disbursed. Further, Lang presents no reason for her delay. “A letter is not the equivalent to a sworn declaration filed according to the relevant statute. It is too little, too late.” Triplett, 812 So. 2d at 1067 (¶12) (internal citation omitted).
Parting thoughts …
- I wonder whether Dorothy now thinks it was worth the few extra bucks she saved to keep that joint account open with her n’er-do-well estranged husband. [Incidentally, the COA opinion points out that Derrick owed Dorothy back child support also. Ouch.].
- Don’t sit on a case like this. File something right away, even if it’s wrong. You can always amend later, and you can continue to negotiate and talk with pleadings filed. Here, the five-month delay was fatal to Dorothy’s claim.
- This may seem like a rare case, but I actually have had a couple of cases where the question was raised about the rights of joint-account owners. They were resolved, but you never know when yours will not be.
NOTICE FOR A DAY CERTAIN
May 2, 2013 § Leave a comment
Although the COA decision in In the Matter of Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights by Benny Ray Saucier, handed down March 26, 2013, nominally dealt with the notice provisions of the Mississippi Structured Settlement Protection Act (MSSPA), MCA 11-57-1 through 15, it punctuates an important point about notice and process that applies in other cases as well.
The statutes in this case specify certain notices that must be given to “all interested parties”:
- Section 11-57-11(2) states that, “Not less than twenty (20) days prior to the scheduled hearing on any application for approval of a transfer of structured settlement payment rights under Section 11-57-7, the transferee shall file with the court . . . and serve on all interested parties a notice of the proposed transfer and the application for its authorization … “
- And subsection (f) states that, “Notification of the time and place of the hearing and notification of the manner in which and the time by which written responses to the application must be filed which shall be not less than fifteen (15) days after service of the transferee’s notice in order to be considered by the court or responsible administrative authority.”
The statute, however, does not spell out what form of process or notice should accomplish what the statute mandates.
Here’s what the COA said in the majority opinion by Judge Griffis:
¶68. The MSSPA does not specify the appropriate notice that is required section 11-57-11(2). Because the MSSPA requires court approval, “[a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” M.R.C.P. 3(a). To obtain personal jurisdiction over an interested party, service of process is required consistent with either Rule 4 or Rule 81 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Although the MSSPA is not included among the actions subject to Rule 81(a), reading section 11-5-11(2), we interpret notice to require a return for a date certain similar to the procedure authorized in Rule 81(d)(5). At a minimum, once the original notice is provided to an interested party, notice of subsequent proceedings must comply with Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 5.
So, in these cases where a statute provides notice for a given period, and the matter is not among those enumerated in MRCP 81(d)(1) and (2), your safest course is to issue process to a day certain under MRCP 81(d)(5). In my experience this is exactly what practitioners and judges have been doing since the earliest days of the MRCP, but it is nice to see the appellate court’s stamp of approval on the practice, since it makes complete sense.
NAMING NAMES
January 29, 2013 § 1 Comment
The COA’s decision in Powell v. Crawley, handed down January 22, 2013, presents an opportunity to remind you of several aspects of name changes about which you need to be aware.
Christina Crawley gave birth to a baby daughter on January 29, 2010. The following day, Chase Powell, who was not married to Christina, signed two forms provided by the Mississippi Department of Health. The first form was an acknowledgment of paternity. The second was a “Name of Child Verification Form,” which included the following language:
By my signature[,] I verify and agree that the [c]hild’s name as it appears in Item 1 of the birth certificate and Item 1 of [the verification form] is the name to be given to the child by the mother and I, and the name is spelled in accordance with our wishes.
The verification form also included the following statement:
The name given a child on the Certification of Live Birth establishes the legal identity of that child, and as such attention to the spelling of the name must be exercised. Traditionally, the [c]hild’s last name is the same as the [f]ather’s last name as listed on the Certificate of Live Birth, or, in cases where the mother is not married at any time from conception through birth and there is no “Acknowledgment of Paternity,” the [c]hild’s name is the legal last name of the mother at the time of birth. However, parents are not required to follow tradition and may name the child any name of their choosing.
Chase verified the child’s name as Carsyn Michelle Crawley.
Nine months later, Chase filed a complaint in chancery court seeking an adjudication of paternity, child support, and visitation. He also asked to change Carsyn’s surname to Powell. At hearing, the matter was presented solely by argument of counsel, who offered the forms described above for the court’s inspection.
The chancellor ruled that Chase had waived his right to have the child’s surname changed when he signed the verification form.
The COA affirmed the chancellor’s decision, but not for the reason assigned by the trial judge. Judge Irving, writing for the majority, said:
“We need not decide whether the chancery court abused it[s] discretion in refusing to grant the requested relief because, as stated, Powell failed to make the State Board of Health a respondent. Therefore, the chancery court could not have granted the relief even if it had wanted to. See Tillman v. Tillman, 791 So. 2d 285, 289 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (stating that it is the standard practice to affirm the trial court’s decision when the right result has been reached even if for the wrong reason).”
So here are a few nuggets to take away from this decision:
- If you are seeking to change a person’s name only, then you proceed under MCA 93-17-1(1), which would obviously require in a case such as Chad Powell’s that the mother and father would be parties.
- Another frequent cause of name changes is post-divorce, when the name change was not included in the divorce judgment and the petitioner wants a court order to get Social Security, driver’s license, retirement and other records straight. That kind of name change is also governed by MCA 93-17-1(1). It would be an ex parte action, since there is no other interested party.
- If you wish to change the name on the birth certificate, then you proceed under MCA 41-57-23, which requires that you make the State Registrar of Vital Records a party. Typically, lawyers simply mail a copy of the complaint to the State Board of Health with a request for a response, and the agency will file an answer, most often either admitting the relief sought or leaving it up to the court. If you fail to make the agency a party, you can expect a result strikingly similar to Chad Powell’s.
- MCA 93-17-1(2) allows the court to “legitimize” a child when the natural father marries the natural mother. Since that relief would include adding the father to the birth certificate, you should comply with MCA 43-57-23 and make the State Registrar of Vital Records a party.
- There is a dearth of case law as to how the statutes authorizing establishment of paternity via acknowledgment interact with the statutes for parentage (paternity), child support, custody and visitation. If I were in practice, I think I would have advised Chase to file the parentage action as he did so as to open up all of the other relief incidental to being the father. Acknowledgment of paternity is only that; it does not confer visitation or custodial rights, does not set child support, and may even be set aside in certain conditions.
- This decision sidestepped the question of the chancellor’s authority and scope of discretion in changing the child’s name. Since it is not res judicata as to the State Bureau of Vital Statistics, I would guess that Chase could file his suit again, this time making the agency a party. Maybe then we’ll get an answer.
A CAVEAT ABOUT PROCESS BY CERTIFIED MAIL
December 3, 2012 § Leave a comment
MRCP 4(c)(5) allows for process by certified mail on a natural person outside the state. There are two requirements: (1) that a copy of both the summons and the pleading be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, restricted delivery; and (2) that there be evidence of the delivery or by the envelope returned marked, “Refused.” If either of the requirements are not met, you have to reissue process.
There must be proof that both “the summons and the complaint” (that’s the language of the rule, which I interpret to mean the summons and the pleading initiating the instant action) were included in the certified mailing. You can do this yourself by affidavit or certficate of service in the court file, or you can ask the clerk to do it with a notation on the docket, as in MRCP 4(c)(4)(C). Your notice that the petition or other pleading was sent, not mentioning the summons, is inadequate process. Likewise, merely mailing the summons alone is not enough.
It is not adequate for the process to be issued and addressed to “John Smith,” and for the return receipt to be signed by “J.W. Smith” or “Kathy Smith for John Smith,” or “Phyllis Smith, mother of John Smith,” or any other person. Also, the record must show that the signature on the receipt is actually that of the party to be served. In a recent case in my court, the signature on the receipt unquestionably did not even remotely resemble the defendant’s signature on the original property settlement agreement or on a return mail receipt for an earlier proceeding.
And, of course, the process must be timely served. For a Rule 81 summons, the return receipt must show deliver within the requisite time.
Also, the rule specifies that it applies to “a person outside this state.” In my opinion, it does not apply to natural persons located in Mississippi. There is a first-class-mail process provision for persons in Mississippi at MRCP 4(c)(3), and it does allow at its subsection (B) for service “in any other manner permitted by this rule,” if the required acknowledgment of mailing is not returned. But Rule 4(c)(5) specifically limits itself to “a person outside this state …”
The rules for serving an out-of-state corporate entity or an out-of-state government entity are spelled out separately in MRCP 4(d)(4) and (8), respectively.
When I practiced, I almost never used certfied mail process (or first class mail either, for that matter). In my experience, postal employees don’t take any care to make sure that the deliveree is actually the addressee, or that the delivery is truly “restricted” within the meaning of the term, or that any of your needs are met. They are more concerned with getting that letter out of their hands, with a signature on the green card that they can hand off to somebody else. I usually persuaded my clients to go to the extra expense of retaining the services of a process server to save time and frustration. But I recognize that in these times of economic strain your clients appreciate anything you can do to save them some money.
If you’re going to use certified mail process, take the time and pay the attention to do it right. Read the rules. Process rules are to be strictly construed. Sloppy handling will result in unnecessary, frustrating delay for your client and further expense to get that summons served.
MRCP 81 NOTCHES A CURIOUS KILL
September 6, 2012 § 3 Comments
The latest case to fall prey to the predatory MRCP 81 is Pearson v. Browning, decided September 4, 2012, by the COA. We last looked at the vicissitudes of the rule in a post about Brown, et al v. Tate.
The case that brought Pearson v. Browning to the COA began when Dennis Pearson filed a pro se pleading against his ex-wife, Patricia Browning, seeking modification and contempt. Although the procedural history is not entirely clear, it appears that Patricia filed a counterclaim-like pleading charging Dennis with contempt. Both matters came up for hearing on February 2, 2009, when dennis failed to appear, and the chancellor dismissed his claims. The judge ordered that Patricia’s claims be reset for hearing for August 6, 2009. On or about June 10, 2012, however, the court administrator gave notice that the date was again reset, for November 3, 2010. There is no court order setting the November date.
Patricia’s attorney sent Dennis a letter, dated October 15, 2010, notifying him of the November 3, 2010, trial date. Dennis testified that he did not receive it until November 1, 2010, and he filed a letter complaining of the short notice.
On November 3, 2010, Dennis appeared personally pro se and protested the lack of time to prepare his defense and lack of notice of what he was being charged with. He moved for a continuance. The judge denied his motion and pressed on to hearing. On November 18, 2010, the chancellor entered a judgment against Dennis in favor of Patricia in the sum of $53,528.22.
The COA reversed. Judge Griffis’s opinion spells out the basic law of MRCP 81:
¶7. In this case, jurisdiction is governed by Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 81(d)(2), because it includes the “modification or enforcement of custody, support, and alimony judgments” and “contempt.”
¶8. A Rule 81 summons is necessary to begin dormant domestic actions listed in Rule 81(d). A Rule 81 summons is not a Rule 4 summons. See M.R.C.P. 4. A Rule 81 summons gives notice to the defendant of the date, time, and place to appear. It does not require a response. A Rule 4 summons requires a written response in thirty days. A Rule 4 summons and a Rule 5 notice have no effect with Rule 81 matters. Sanghi [v. Sanghi], 759 So. 2d at 1253 (¶¶11, 14) (citing Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc., 661 So. 2d 188, 194 (Miss. 1995); Powell v. Powell, 644 So. 2d 269, 273-74 (Miss. 1994)); see M.R.C.P. 5.
¶9. In a matter that requires a Rule 81 summons and does not use a Rule 81 summons, the resulting judgment is void because it is made without jurisdiction over the parties. See Bryant, Inc. v. Walters, 493 So. 2d 933, 938 (Miss. 1986); Duvall v. Duvall, 224 Miss. 546, 555, 80 So. 2d 752, 755 (1955); Roberts v. Roberts, 866 So. 2d 474, 476-77 (¶¶7-8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). If an action under Rule 81(d)(1) or (2) “is not heard on the day set for hearing, it may by order signed on that day be continued to a later day for hearing without additional summons on the defendant or respondent.” M.R.C.P. 81(d)(5). For no additional Rule 81 summons to be required, the order that continues the trial date must be signed on or before the original trial date.
¶10. In this appeal, Pearson argues that Browning failed to comply with Rule 81(d)(5). Specifically, Pearson argues that jurisdiction lapsed because a court administrator’s notice changed the trial date of January 22, 2008 to January 23, 2008; an order dated October 24, 2008 changed the trial date of September 18, 2008 to February 2, 2009; a court administrator’s notice dated June 11, 2010 changed the trial date of August 6, 2009 to November 3, 2010; and Pearson received a letter on November 1, 2010 about the November 3, 2010 trial.
¶11. Our review is limited to events that occurred after February 2, 2009. Because Pearson was the plaintiff prior to February 2, 2009, he cannot properly raise a jurisdictional issue before that date. By the fact that a plaintiff brought his claim, he consents to personal jurisdiction in that court. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 775, 779 (1984).
¶12. Rule 81(d)(5) governs the need for additional summons on the defendant. Before February 2, 2009, Pearson simply was not entitled to a Rule 81 summons because he was the plaintiff.
¶13. On February 2, 2009, the chancery court dismissed all of Pearson’s claims with prejudice. The only claims left before the court were Browning’s contempt claims against Pearson. Hence, after February 2, 2009, Pearson was no longer the plaintiff.
¶14. Whether an additional Rule 81 summons was required and, thus, whether the chancery court had jurisdiction over Pearson on November 3, 2010, depends on: (1) whether Browning’s “motion” was actually a petition for contempt; (2) whether the court administrator’s notice was sufficient to substitute for the lack of a Rule 81 summons; (3) whether Pearson’s case is similar to Bailey v. Fischer, 946 So. 2d 404 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006); and (4) whether Pearson made an appearance, thereby waiving the lack of a Rule 81 summons.
The COA concluded that Patricia’s “motion” was, in fact, a petition for contempt that required Rule 81 notice, that the court administrator’s notice was not adequate to suffice in lieu of a proper MRCP 81 summons, that Bailey is distinguishable, and that Dennis had not waived the jurisdictional issues by making a voluntary appearance. The court reversed the chancery court judgment for lack of jurisdiction.
The four bases listed above for determination of the Rule 81 issue deserve further attention in one or more future posts and will not be addressed further here.
A few observations based on the foregoing:
- I call this case curious because, once Dennis had been properly served with the counterclaim, in most districts that I am aware of, he was only entitled from that point to Rule 5 notice. This case seems to say either that a counterclaim requires a Rule 81 process, or that one must be issued if the original plaintiff’s pleading is dismissed. I have never seen this practice in my 29 years’ experience under the MRCP. I admit that I have had trouble understanding the exact procedural chronology of this case, so the problem may be mine. But if my understanding is correct, this case is a major change in Rule 81 practice that you need to study very carefully.
- Once again, if the matter that is the subject of your Rule 81 summons will not be heard on the day specified in the summons, you must have the court enter an order on or before (caveat … as to before, see below) the day noticed for hearing continuing the case to a specific date and time in the future.
- Although the COA said that the case must be continued ” … on or before …” the date set in the summons, in my opinion only an agreed order of continuance dated before the summons date would be effective. If you unilaterally reset the case by order before the date set in the original summons, you are depriving the defendant of notice and the opportunity to defend.
- As long as Dennis was in the status of a petitioner (plaintiff) who had invoked the court’s jurisdiction, he was entitled only to MRCP 5 notice; after he lost his petitioner status, he became entitled to the protection of Rule 81 notice.
As a practice matter, if you were Patricia’s lawyer, you could have avoided most of the above problems had you seen to it yourself that proper continuance orders and notices to the opposing side were presented to the judge and entered in a timely fashion. It’s your case, after all, and judges and court administrators have lots on their respective plates. As I’ve said before, judges and court personnel do their best, but the bottom line is that they are not responsible for the proper handling of your case; you are.
RULE 81 CLAIMS ANOTHER VICTIM
August 14, 2012 § 5 Comments
There are judges and lawyers who absolutely hate MRCP 81. I don’t know of anyone who really loves it. Most who don’t hate it just try to operate within its bounds, as they understand it, and go about their business.
There is a vast graveyard of legal shipwrecks on the shoals of Rule 81. The latest took a not unfamiliar, if long-delayed, route to disaster.
To make a long story short, the plaintiff filed a petition for partition in 2005, and issued MRCP 81 summons for the defendants. Some kind of proceeding took place in July after the defendants had been served, but no order was entered and no other action taken of record.
Five years later, with a different chancellor on the bench, the plaintiff awoke to the fact that the case was sitting idle. Realizing that one necessary defendant had never been served with process, the plaintiff issued process for her. She appeared in response, and the case was continued to a later date. When neither she nor any of the other defendants appeared on the later date the chancellor entered a judgment granting the plaintiff the relief he requested, a partition by sale.
The defendants filed an MRCP 59 motion arguing against the partition by sale, and complaining that they were not properly served with process. The chancellor overruled the motion, and the defendants appealed.
In Brown, et al. v. Tate, rendered August 7, 2012, the COA reversed and remanded the case because no order had been entered continuing the hearing on the the 2005 summons.
Here are a few learning points from the case you might want to consider:
- If you continue your hearing, for whatever reason, from the date set in the MRCP 81 summons, be sure that you obtain an order of the court dated the day set for hearing in the summons, continuing it to another day certain. If you fail to do this, your process is dead, and you will have to start over.
- If one or more defendants show up on the day set in the summons, make sure they sign off on your order of continuance, and make sure you give them a copy of the order.
- Instead of just reciting that the case is continued to another day, include the following information in your order: (1) that all defendants were called in the courtroom and in the corridors of the court house; (2) name the defendants who did appear; (3) name the defendants who did not appear; (4) describe what actions were taken in court, if any; (5) the date, time, and place of the next hearing; (6) a statement that each defendant who appeared was provided with a copy of the order and that each understands that a judgment may be entered against them if thhey fail to appear at the next hearing; and (7) the signature of each defendant who appeared.
- Ask the judge to add, in the continuation order, a requirement that each defendant file an answer before the date set for the continuation hearing. An answer to a Rule 81 matter is not required by the rules, but MRCP 81(d)(4) permits the court to require an answer ” … if it deems it necessary to properly develop the issues.” And “A party who fails to file an answer after being required to do so shall not be permitted to present evidence on his behalf.” By including the requirement for an answer in your continuance order, you are effectively setting up a default situation for those who do not answer.
This particular case is one that fell through the cracks and should have been scuttled by an MRCP 41(d) notice years before it resurrected itself. The doltish chancellor should have made that plaintiff’s lawyer start over when he came before the court with that old file. Oh, and lest you think I am being too harsh in referring to that judge as doltish, that judge was I.
DEVIOUS SEARCH AND INQUIRY
July 26, 2012 § 3 Comments
It avails one naught to get a judgment when all the proper parties have not been given notice and an opportunity to defend.
In 2007, Lottie Woods brought an action for adverse possession of family property. She claimed in her complaint that she was the sole and only heir of her uncle Cornelius, and she published process for him, his unknown heirs, and any other person claiming an interest in the property.
It should have been a clue of problems to come when Corenelius, Jr. showed up at the appointed time and produced a birth certificate showing he was Cornelius’s son. But it all seemed to work out because Lottie and Jr. settled the dispute between them, dividing the property.
The only problem with all of the foregoing is that Lottie neglected to make it known that she had four other siblings who could claim an interest in the property. In other words, as Jr.’s appearance foretold, she could hardly be said to be the “sole and only” heir. Her brother Samson and the other siblings filed an objection and separate litigation to correct the matter.
The COA case of Byrd v. Woods, et al., decided June 19, 2012, is where this particular drama was played out. The case goes off on several other points of law, but the one that I want to focus on here is what happens when a party does not comply with MRCP 4’s requirement that there be diligent search and inquiry before process by publication. Here is what Judge Fair had to say about it, commencing at ¶14:
Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(4) states that if a defendant cannot be found after diligent search and inquiry, shown by sworn complaint or filed affidavit, he may be made a party by publication. In the 2007 adverse possession action, Lottie filed an affidavit of diligent search and inquiry to obtain a publication summons. However, she must have known that her brother (and her other siblings) would have an interest in the “family land” she sought to adversely possess. They were both potential heirs of Cornelius and believed the property belonged to their family. Further, Lottie and Samson were not estranged, so it is unlikely she could not find him after diligent search and inquiry. But Lottie did not serve Samson personally, nor did she mention or serve her other three siblings.
“The rules on service of process are to be strictly construed. If they have not been complied with, the court is without jurisdiction unless the defendant appears of his own volition.” Kolikas v. Kolikas, 821 So. 2d 874, 878 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). In Caldwell v. Caldwell, 533 So. 2d 413 (Miss. 1988), the supreme court stated “if at any stage of the proceedings it appears 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 . . . .” Id. at 416.
Therefore, Lottie did not obtain service of process on Samson by publication because her affidavit was not made in good faith after diligent inquiry. Neither he nor Lottie’s other siblings are bound by the 2007 judgment.
The lesson here is that when your client avers that he or she has made “diligent inquiry,” or, using the traditional phrase still used by many lawyers, “diligent search and inquiry,” you had better make darned sure that there was indeed a search and inquiry, and that it was in fact diligent. It’s a subject we’ve talked about here before.
Expect the chancellor to inquire behind the affidavit before granting any relief. I always do, and I do not accept a shrug of the shoulders or a couple of half-hearted attempts. In one case before me the woman claimed that the last she knew of her husband he was hanging out at a bar in Wayne County. I asked whether she had gone there to inquire about him. When she said “no,” I ordered her to go to the bar and ask the bartender and some of the habitués whether they knew his whereabouts. Wonder of wonders, she found him and he was personally served.
In the case of Lottie Woods, based solely on what I read in the COA opinion, I would have found that her claim in a pleading intended to influence a judge that she was the sole and only heir when she had living siblings in the area and Cornelius’s son was still alive to have been a fraud on the court. As it was, her “oversight” has cost all of these parties more than five years of wasted time in litigation, and they are returning to the starting line, probably poorer for the trial and appeal attorney fees, and surely not thrilled with the legal process. If only Lottie had sworn truthfully …
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 