Two Birds with One MRCP 54(b) Stone
August 5, 2013 § Leave a comment
You’ve read here over and over that when the chancellor adjudicates fewer than all of the pending issues in a case, no direct appeal can be taken unless the judge certifies under MRCP 54(b) that there is no just reason to delay an appeal. In the absence of such a certification, the unhappy party’s only recourse is to file a petition with the MSSC for an interlocutory appeal.
The legal landscape is littered with the wreckage of appeals that unsuccessfully ignored the gravitational pull of R54(b), only to come crashing back to where they started.
The latest example — with a twist — is Estate of Drake: Drake v. Drake, decided by the COA July 30, 2013.
Benjamin Lee Drake sued his uncle, Bennie Larry Drake, alleging that Bennie Larry had unduly influenced Benjamin Lee’s father, before the father’s death, to change the beneficiary of his life insurance policy from Benjamin Lee to Bennie Larry, and to convey a parcel of land to him. Benjamin Lee asked the court to set aside both the change in beneficiary and the land conveyance.
In the course of the litigation, the chancellor dismissed the life insurance relief for failure of Benjamin Lee to file his complaint within three years of discovery of his uncle’s fraudulent conduct, as required in MCA 15-1-49 and 15-1-67.
The chancellor left the real property issue pending, which meant that he had resolved fewer than all of the pending issues. He did it with no MRCP 54(b) certification, and he made it clear on the record that his ruling was not final. Nonetheless, he told Benjamin Lee that, if he “wish[ed] to take an interlocutory appeal,” the “same was granted.”
Now here is where things get a tad peculiar.
Benjamin Lee did file a petition for an interlocutory appeal under MRAP 5. But he did not stop there. He also filed a separate, general notice of appeal under MRAP 4. So he had two simultaneous appeals from the same judgment.
As is the norm, the MRAP 4 case was assigned to the COA, and the MSSC kept the MRAP 5 case.
I’ll let the COA tell us what transpired from there:
¶6. “[F]ind[ing] that [Benjamin Lee] filed a notice of appeal from the same trial order,” the supreme court dismissed his separate petition for permission for an interlocutory appeal under Rule 5. At that point, recognizing the other appeal—the Rule 4 non-interlocutory appeal—was not from a final order, Bennie Larry filed two motions to dismiss the general appeal. But the supreme court denied these motions as “not well taken.”
¶7. The appeal has since been assigned to this court. But since the order under review is—as Judge Grant and both parties acknowledge—non-final, we lack jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory appeal and must dismiss. See Lundquist [v. Todd Constr., LLC], 75 So. 3d [606] at 608 [(Miss. 2006)](¶12).
Ergo … Presto Changeo, and … Voila! … two appeals are magically transformed into zero appeals. And the appellant is right back where he started.
Can You Ask for Rehearing, or to Alter or Amend a Judgment, Before There is a Judgment?
August 1, 2013 § 3 Comments
It’s fairly common in this court in a complicated case for me to issue an opinion in a case and direct that one of the attorneys prepare a judgment corresponding with it. The opinion is is issued on one date, and the judgment, as a result, is entered perhaps two weeks later.
It’s also fairly common for a lawyer, once the opinion has been issued, to file an MRCP 59 motion for rehearing in the interval between issuance of the opinion and entry of the judgment.
It does make a difference when you file your post-trial motion. A motion filed within 10 days of entry of the judgment is treated as a R59 motion, and one filed later than 10 days is treated as a R60 motion. City of Jackson v. Jackson Oaks Limited Partnership, 792 So.2d 983, 985 (Miss. 2001). Since the subject matter that may be addressed under each rule is markedly different, you can see that it makes quite a difference when your motion is filed.
So how is the court to treat your motion if you file it even before a judgment is entered? Is your motion a nullity?
The COA addressed the issue in Street v. Street, 936 So.2d 1002 (Miss. App. 2006), where the court stated:
¶ 16. The timing of post-trial motions under Rule 59(a) and Rule 59(e) is the same; such motions must be made “not later than ten days after the entry of judgment.” M.R.C.P. 59(b); 59(e). Both Stephen’s Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration and his Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial were filed after the chancellor’s bench opinion but before the final judgment was entered. Carla argues that Stephen’s motion for reconsideration was untimely under Rule 59(e) because it was filed before the final judgment was entered rather than within ten days after the entry of the final judgment. For that reason, she contends that the motion should not have been considered by the chancellor.
¶ 17. It appears that the question of whether a Rule 59(e) motion is timely if filed before the entry of a final judgment is one of first impression in Mississippi. However, “[t]he Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure are patterned after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and we have looked to the federal interpretations of our state counterparts as persuasive authority.” Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Halliburton Co., 826 So.2d 1206, 1215(¶ 32) (Miss.2001). Federal authority is settled that a Rule 59 motion is timely though filed after the court makes findings of fact but before the entry of a final judgment. See 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2812 at 82 n. 44 (1973).
¶ 18. As previously stated, the timing of a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment and a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial is identical; both motions must be made “not later than ten days after the entry of judgment.” M.R.C.P. 59(b); 59(e). In Hilst v. Bowen, 874 F.2d 725, 726 (10th Cir.1989), the Tenth Circuit observed that “courts and commentators generally agree that this ten-day limit sets only a maximum period and does not preclude a party from making a Rule 59 motion before a formal judgment has been entered.” The Hilst court found that the appellant’s motion for reconsideration was timely though made after the lower court rendered a memorandum and order but before the court entered a final judgment. Id. In concluding that a motion for a new trial filed before entry of judgment was timely, the Fifth Circuit stated that “[the] language [of Rule 59(b) ] does not explicitly require that a motion for new trial be made after judgment is entered, and it has not been interpreted to include this requirement.” Greater Houston Ch. of the ACLU v. Eckels, 755 F.2d 426, 427 (5th Cir.1985); see also McCulloch Motors Corp. v. Oregon Saw Chain Corp., 245 F.Supp. 851, 853 (S.D.Cal.1963) (finding that, by the rule’s use of the words “shall” and “not later than,” the ten days after the entry of judgment established an outside, not an inside, limit for the timing of a motion for a new trial). Based on this authority, we find that Stephen’s Rule 59(e) motion was timely filed after the chancellor’s rendition of her bench opinion, though before the final judgment was entered.
Street was cited in the later case of Gary v. Gary, 84 So.3d 836 (Miss. App. 2012):
¶ 12. Because Michael filed his motion to reconsider five days before the November 29, 2010 entry of the nunc pro tunc order, this court considers his motion for reconsideration as a motion for new hearing or, alternatively, to amend or alter the judgment under Rule 59. M.R.C.P. 59(a), (e) (requiring both motion for new trial and a motion to alter or amend the judgment “be filed not later than ten days after entry of the judgment”); see Street v. Street, 936 So.2d 1002, 1008 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (finding a motion to alter the judgment filed after the court made findings of fact but before the entry of a final judgment was timely under Rule 59).
Thanks to attorney David L. Calder of the Child Advocacy Clinic at the University of Mississippi School of Law
The Power to Bind the Client
July 30, 2013 § 5 Comments
When you accept the responsibility to represent a client and enter an appearance or otherwise hold yourself out as representing a party, the court will presume that you have the authority to speak for and bind that party.
That principle came into play in the COA case of Williams v. Homecomings Financial Network, Inc., handed down July 23, 2013.
In that case, Samuel and Carolyn Williams retained a law firm to sue their mortgage company for fraud. They were two of a group of 16 plaintiffs with similar claims. Their attorney, Martin, signed the complaint initiating the suit, holding herself out as counsel for the Williamses. Another attorney in the firm, Nelson, participated.
Terms of settlement were reached, and the attorney signed an agreed judgment of dismissal without prejudice. All of the plaintiff signed the settlement documents except Samuel and Carolyn Williams, who refused to sign. Their attorney withdrew from representation.
Homecomings filed suit to enforce the settlement agreement, and the chancellor ruled in favor of the mortgage company, whereupon the Williamses appealed.
The main point raised by Samuel and Carolyn on appeal was the admission into evidence of the deposition of their former attorney, which they argued contained inadmissible hearsay. For our purposes, though, it’s the authority of counsel and the power to bind the client that concerns us. Here are some points from Judge Carlton’s COA opinion, which affirmed the chancellor:
- ¶13. [From the chancellor’s opinion] “There is a long-standing principle in [the] law that settlements are contracts which are enforceable according to their terms. An attorney is presumed to have the authority to speak for and bind his client. Parmley v. 84 Lumber [Co.], 911 So. 2d 569 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). Whether or not an attorney has agreed to a settlement on behalf of his client is a question of fact. Id.
- ¶17. In this case, as previously noted, Martin expressed on the record through deposition testimony that he had the authority to bind the Williamses to the terms of the settlement upon learning from Nelson of the Williamses’ alleged acceptance of the proposed settlement. As also previously noted, the record reflects that Martin signed the complaint against Homecomings on behalf of the Williamses. We thus find that the record provides substantial evidence supporting Martin’s authority as counsel of record to bind the Williamses to the agreement. We also find substantial evidence exists to support the chancellor’s order enforcing the settlement agreement. See Parmley, 911 So. 2d at 573 (¶19). Furthermore, Martin’s testimony that he possessed authority as the Williamses’ attorney to accept the settlement terms, coupled with Martin signing the complaint on behalf of the Williamses, demonstrates that Martin indeed possessed the authority to enter into a settlement and bind the Williamses to the terms of any such agreement with Homecomings. Fairchild, 254 Miss. at 265, 179 So. at 187.
In other words, when you sign the pleadings and act like a lawyer with authority to act in a case, the court is going to presume that you have that authority.
And what are the evidentiary implications of that presumption when the court is called upon to make that finding of fact? Here is what the COA said as to the issues in this particular case:
- ¶16. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(C) provides that a statement is not hearsay if “[t]he statement is offered against a party and is . . . a statement by a person authorized by him to make a statement concerning the subject[.]” Our supreme court has held that “[a]n attorney is presumed to have the authority to speak for and bind his client.” Parmley, 911 So. 2d at 573 (¶19); see also Pace v. Fin. Sec. Life of Miss., 608 So. 2d 1135, 1138 (Miss. 1992); Fairchild v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 254 Miss. 261, 265, 179 So. 2d 185, 187 (1965). Additionally, we recognize the determination of “[w]hether or not the attorney has agreed to a settlement on behalf of the client is a question of fact.” Parmley, 911 So. 2d at 573 (¶19).
So, when you speak on behalf of the client under color of the client’s authority, your statements will be admissible as non-hearsay. Attorney-client privilege obviously restrains the scope of admissibility, but does not proscribe it.
You can help avoid factual disputes over the scope of your authority by using representation agreements that clearly define it. As the case progresses, document key discussions with your client via followup letters. Get your client to sign off on orders and agreements that will affect the outcome of the case.
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.
Equitable Distribution of Hidden Assets
June 26, 2013 § 2 Comments
What do you do when one party hides assets she claims are separate, and refuses to divulge their whereabouts? You divide them anyway. At least that is what happened in Wilson v. Wilson, decided June 11, 2013, by the COA.
Penny and Gregory Wilson had the kind of financial arrangement that one sees from time to time in a divorce case. Penny made most of the income, apparently, and the parties maintained completely separate banking and finances. Gregory paid Penny a sum that they agreed was one-half of the household expenses, and some extra money when he worked odd jobs or when Penny wanted to go on vacation. One might say that Gregory was renting his marriage.
Penny was quite the financial wizard. She had managed to accumulate more than $200,000 in a credit union account, but she withdrew the money before trial and, according to the COA opinion, she ” … declined to reveal where she had placed the funds from that account” (¶ 4). She also managed to squirrel away some cash in several CD’s, but she cashed those in also, and when asked where the cash was, she ” … refused to reveal its location to the chancery court” (¶ 6).
Now, let’s stop right there.
What exactly is any self-respecting chancellor to do when confronted with a party who blatantly and wantonly refuses to comply with the express dictates of UCCR 8.05?
Rule 8.05(a) requires these disclosures:
A detailed written statement of actual income and expenses and assets and liabilities, such statement to be on the forms attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, copies of the preceding year’s Federal and State Income Tax returns, in full form as filed, or copies of W-2s if the return has not yet been filed; and, a general statement of the providing party describing employment history and earnings from the inception of the marriage or from the date of divorce, whichever is applicable …
There is no exception for separate property, or what one claims to be separate, or any other financial information. The rule specifically requires disclosure of actual income and expenses, as well as assets and liabilities, without exception.
The rule also states that:
The failure to observe this rule, without just cause, shall constitute contempt of Court for which the Court shall impose appropriate sanctions and penalties.
What the chancellor chose to do here was to divide the assets between Penny and Gregory, over Penny’s protestation that Gregory had not contributed to their accumulation, and that they were separate. In affirming the chancellor’s ruling, the COA pointed out that the burden was on Penny to prove the non-marital character of the assets (¶ 14), which she failed to do.
I guess that the chancellor decided that Penny had, in fact, disclosed the assets as required in UCCR 8.05, to the extent that she subjected them to adjudication, and her attempt to conceal them would not shield them from execution. Still, I find it troubling that a party could take the stand and expressly refuse to be candid and forthright about her assets, for a couple of reasons:
- There already exists a “fudge factor” in most financial statements. It’s not uncommon for parties to overestimate their expenses, overlook overtime and bonuses, and minimize self-employment income. When a party takes the stand and professes to be hiding assets, that kicks it up to an entirely different level.
- When one hides assets, no one knows for sure exactly how much money or value we are dealing with. Penny disclosed that there was $217,000 in the credit union account, but if she divulged the institution and account number, discovery might have found the real balance to be more like $300,000. And there is nothing in the COA opinion to show that Penny ever told the balance that had been in the CD’s.
I can’t say that I would have overlooked Penny’s intransigence.
I also don’t understand how Gregory’s lawyer did not raise cane before trial over the secretion of more than $200,000 in cash and CD’s. Gregory had a substantial stake in establishing their true value. The chancellor awarded him 40% of the credit union money. There is a big difference between 40% of 200,000 and 40% of $300,000.
Pitfall in Proving Parentage Produces a Pratfall
June 25, 2013 § 1 Comment
The COA decision in Ivy v. Ivy, decided December 11, 2012, is a tour de force analysis of the hearsay rule and the parentage presumption. It’s far beyond the scope of this humble blog to break the 30-page majority and 10-page dissenting opinions down in detail, but the case bears mentioning for a few points:
- If you intend to offer a document into evidence that pertains to a material fact and is circumstantially trustworthy but not within any of the specific hearsay exceptions, it may not be admitted unless you first comply with MRE 803(24), which requires you to give the other side notice of it and an opportunity to “prepare to meet it.”
- Even self-authenticated documents under MRE 902 require prior notice to opposing counsel before they may be admitted at trial.
- The majority opinion’s analysis of the confusing welter of statutes for acknowledgment of paternity may be helpful to you, particularly in a wrongful-death setting as was the case here.
In Ivy, the battle was to determine who were the heirs at law and wrongful-death beneficiaries. There was a lot at stake, because the decedent had been killed in a car-train collision in Kemper County, which had the potential to produce a lucrative verdict or settlement.
The chancellor admitted into evidence an affidavit and DNA test that supported the conclusion that the decedent’s mother and siblings were the only heirs and wrongful-death beneficiaries. The COA ruled, after detailed analysis, that the chancellor should not have admitted the affidavit and DNA report into evidence. The case was remanded for “further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” To me, this means that the parties are headed for a do-over, with the COA majority opinion as a road map to a proper conclusion.
Clarifying Judgments Clarified
June 24, 2013 § Leave a comment
You may recall Eddie and Fannie Cotton’s first trip to the COA. In Cotton v. Cotton, 44 So.2d 371 (Miss. App. 2010), the court affirmed the chancellor’s equitable distribution in a case where the judge found the marriage void as bigamous. The case is of interest not only for that point, but also because the chancellor did not apply — or even mention — the Ferguson factors in her division. It’s a case you should go back and read when you have time.
Part of that affirmed 2010 division was an award of 40% of Eddie’s retirement from employment with Solae LLC during the void marriage. It seems that Eddie omitted the retirement account on his 8.05 financial statement, mentioning it only in his testimony, so the judge did the best she could do and simply awarded the percentage based on his employment with the company.
The problem with that award, as anyone who has dealt with the backwash of a divorce can tell you, is that no plan administrator will honor a QDRO that does not specifically and accurately identify the plan. So, a judgment that says something like “40% of any retirement plan that Eddie participated in while employed with Solae LLC,” is going to be met with a firm “uh-uh” by the plan administrator, which is exactly what happened here. What to do?
Fannie’s lawyers scurried back to court and asked the judge to “interpret” her prior judgment to provide that the retirement account was with the Bakers and Confectioners Union (B&CU), which was the actual plan in which Eddie participated during his employment with Solae LLC.
The chancellor granted the motion, concluding that the prior judgment had intended to award Fannie 40% of whatever retirement fund Eddie had participated in while employed with Solae LLC, and since Eddie himself had failed to provide the specific information, the court could and should clarify its prior ruling to specify that it pertained to the B&CU account, which was, in fact, the retirement account he had accumulated during his Solae employment.
Eddie appealed, taking the position that the chancellor impermissibly changed and broadened the scope of the original judgment.
In Cotton v. Cotton, handed down December 11, 2012, the COA affirmed, concluding that the trial court’s order ” … is neither an improper reconsideration nor an alteration of the prior judgment … ” and was not an abuse of discretion.
I call this decision to your attention for several points:
- This case highlights a way you can solve that QDRO dilemma that so many practitioners face when trying to put the divorce judgment in effect. It’s not that uncommon to get that letter from the plan admin that denies your client any relief.
- It seems that a subpoena duces tecum instanter might just have produced the information that was needed. I believe that I would have authorized it from the bench.
- I wonder why the accurate account information was not fleshed out in discovery? Remember this: if you come to trial with incomplete information, the chancellor will only have two ways to proceed: (1) stop everything and make you go back and do what you should have done in the first place; or (2) proceed and do the best she can with the faulty record before her. A caveat: before you put the burden on the judge to do your work for you, go back and read the MSSC decision in Collins v. Collins. It might persuade you to go a different route.
The real story here is not so much that chancellors can go back and elucidate their judgments to make them do what they were intended to do, but also that lawyers need to be diligent to foil the opposing party’s efforts to conceal and evade disclosure. If you leave it solely up to the judge, you might be disappointed in the outcome.
Oops … and a Further Oops in a Partition Suit
June 18, 2013 § 2 Comments
Sometimes in the euphoria of settlement, when the bright sunlight of concord and goodwill seems to dispel the gray clouds of discord and conflict, in our optimistic pursuit of a written agreement, we lose sight of the details, where devilment always lurks, and out of that inattention things can come dizzyingly unravelled, and then totally unhinged in a most discombobulating way.
That’s more or less what happened at the trial level in the case of Powell v. Gregory, decided by the COA on May 14, 2013.
Siblings Julia Powell, Mary Margaret Gregory, and Bennie Evans believed that they owned a “forty” that had been their parents’ property, and which they came to own via heirship. The “forty” actually consisted of 37.98 acres, or so they thought.
Julia had acquired fee simple title to 2.02 acres from her parents, located in the NW corner of the “forty,” where a home she occupied was located.
The three could not agree on how to divide the property, so the sisters sued Bennie, asking for partition in kind of the surface acreage only.
After suit was filed, the siblings learned that what they thought was a “short forty” of some 38 acres was actually a “long forty” of 47.64 acres, nearly ten acres more than they had anticipated.
[Author’s note: Notice how what everybody believes to be true keeps turning out not to be so?]
After some negotiation, the parties presented the chancellor with an agreed judgment that included the words, “This is a final judgment” (Note: for the uninitiated, that language is required by local rule in that district in any judgment finally adjudicating the ultimate issue). The judgment had attached a county ownership plat showing the general designation of division, with Julia and Mary Margaret to receive 5.94 acres each, and Bennie to receive the remaining 35.64 acres. The parties agreed also to division of taxes and survey expenses. Excepted from the agreement would be Julia’s separate two-acre tract.
The chancellor signed the agreed judgment. No one appealed.
When the surveyor went out, he discovered that Julia’s house was actually 20 feet west of the western border of her “excepted property,” amidst the “heir property,” and not located on her excepted parcel. Julia refused honor the agreement. A year after the original agreed judgment was entered, Mary Margaret filed an action for contempt, and Julia in response filed for relief under MRCP 60(b)(6).
The chancellor ruled that the original agreed judgment was contractual and enforceable. He ordered that the description to Julia’s 2.02 acres be amended by deed to be where she said it was, and directed that the remaining acreage be divided among the three by acreage as originally agreed. He denied Mary Margaret’s request to hold Julia in contempt. Julia filed a battery of motions under R59(a), 59(e) and 60, all of which were overruled. She appealed.
So, did the COA’s decision finally untangle the knot? Well, in a word, no.
Judge Fair’s opinion indicates that the court would have liked to, but for one dispositively complicating factor:
¶20. Based on the record before us, the chancellor would have been within his discretion in interpreting the intent of the parties in the agreed final judgment and fashioning a remedy to carry out that intent. However, we must reverse the second final judgment because of the issue of necessary parties. On November 4, 2010, Belissa, Julia’s daughter, recorded a warranty deed from Julia to herself dated November 3, with a description almost (because of what Julia claimed was a scrivener’s error creating a description that does not “close”) exactly matching that of the two acres described in her mother’s deed. So far as the record reveals, the court was not informed of the existence of Belissa’s deed until it was submitted into evidence at the hearing two months later.
So with a couple more runaway cars added to the trainwreck, back the parties go, now to bring Belissa aboard for Round Three of their unhappy saga that began more than five years ago with that hapless partition complaint. Unless something new is injected, my guess is that the outcome at ground level will be pretty much the same this next go-round as it has been up to now.
Clients always seem to be in such sure command of their facts, even when they have no legitimate basis therefor. When you take what they say at face value, especially in a matter as detail-and-fact dependent as a property case, you get what you pay for, so to speak.
THE PRICE OF ADMISSION
June 11, 2013 § 5 Comments
We all know that MRCP 36 dealing with Requests for Admission (RFA) has some sharp teeth that can inflict painful, if not fatal, wounds on your case. R36(b) says that any matter admitted is “conclusively admitted,” unless the court allows withdrawal or amendment of the response.
The scope and dire effect of that “conclusively admitted” language was explored in the COA case of Aydelott v. Quartaro, decided June 4, 2013. The case at trial was one for grandparent visitation, based on a claim that the grandparents had established the statutorily-required relationship with the grandchildren and had provided support. The chancellor allowed the Quartaros to testify contrary to their admissions, which had been neither withdrawn or amended.
So, was the chancellor’s ruling an inconsequential procedural matter not rising to the level of error, or did it warrant reversal? Here’s how Judge Maxwell answered the question:
¶16. First, the fact the Quartaros had not established a viable relationship had been “conclusively established” through the Quartaros’ responses to the Aydelotts’ requests for admissions made under Rule 36 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. The Aydelotts had requested both Dorothy and Jack admit they “have not provided financial support for the minor children.” Both gave the same response and “admit the allegations contained in Request for Admission No. 12 due to the fact that [their] daughter throws the things away that the Plaintiff buys for the children.” The Quartaros were also asked to admit they “have not visited with the minor children in the last two years” and “have never had frequent visitation with the minor children which included overnight visits for a period of at least one year.” They also admitted they had never had frequent visitation, because Shassidy would not let them. Under Rule 36(b), “[a]ny matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.” The Quartaros never moved to have their admissions withdrawn or amended. So the fact they had never contributed financially to or had frequent visitation with their granddaughters—and thus had never established a viable relationship—had been conclusively established. See In re Dissolution of Marriage of Leverock & Hamby, 23 So.3d 424, 433 (¶33) (Miss. 2009); Boyd v. Boyd, 83 So. 3d 409, 416 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).
¶17. Further, “[a]ny admission that is not amended or withdrawn cannot be rebutted by contrary testimony or ignored by the court even if the party against whom it is directed offers more credible evidence[.]” Gilcrease v. Gilcrease, 918 So. 2d 854, 858 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). Here, the chancellor seemingly ignored the admissions and permitted contradictory testimony that the Quartaros had contributed financially—by allowing Shassidy’s mobile home to be placed on their land—and had frequently visited Acelynn prior to the rift. This was clearly error. While Rule 36 gave the chancellor discretion to permit withdrawal or amendment of the admissions—and is silent about how and when the Quartaros could move for withdrawal or amendment—the fact remains that the Quartaros never moved for withdrawal or amendment, so the lack of financial contribution or frequent visitation were deemed admitted. See Boyd, 83 So. 3d at 416-17 (¶¶21-22).
¶18. We acknowledge that, in the context of child custody, this court has viewed the error of failing to recognize an admitted matter as established and permitting contradictory evidence as merely procedural. Gilcrease, 918 So. 2d at 859 (¶¶8-9). In Gilcrease, when a mother admitted, under Rule 36, that it was in her child’s best interest that custody be awarded to the father, this court found the chancellor’s refusal to deem the best-interest issue admitted was merely a procedural error “made with the proper result in mind.” Gilcrease, 918 So. 2d at 859 (¶9). Because “[c]hild custody is a judicial determination” and not “merely [an] evidentiary matter,” this court held that it would not reverse based on the failure to recognize matters deemed admitted under Rule 36 “absent some other mistake in the chancellor’s substantive decision[-]making process.” Gilcrease, 918 So. 2d at 859 (¶¶8-9).
¶19. Grandparent visitation is different than child custody, as there are other evidentiary considerations besides the child’s best interest that must be considered—namely, whether the grandparent has produced sufficient evidence to show he or she is authorized under the statute to be awarded visitation. Still, while “Rule 36 is to be applied as written, . . . ‘it is not intended to be applied in Draconian fashion.’” Leverock, 23 So. 3d at 432 (¶28) (quoting DeBlanc v. Stancil, 814 So. 2d 796, 801-02 (¶26) (Miss. 2002)). Mindful of this tenet, even if we deemed the chancellor’s failure to recognize the Quartaros’ admissions under Rule 36 as merely procedural, we still must reverse due to a second, substantive error—the chancellor’s finding that a viable relationship may be established based on the grandparents’ desire to establish a relationship with their grandchildren.
The decision went on to say that the mere thwarted desire to establish a relationship is not enough.
This case makes clear that inattention to timely supplementation of your discovery can cost your client big, even to the extent of getting a win turned on its head. If in trial preparation or any point before you believe the prior answers to RFA’s are incorrect and too restrictive, move for leave to amend.
Also, pardon me for sounding harsh, but I think the responses to the RFA’s might have been too “cute.” For example, intead of admitting that they had not supported the children because the mother threw things away, I think it would have been quite accurate and truthful to deny it something like this: “Denied as stated. We have bought numerous things for the children, but our daughter has thrown them away.” Sometimes, in that urge to strike back, clients say things that come back to haunt them. That’s what it looks like happened here.
If you try any grandparent visitation cases, you need to be fully aware of the two major categories of cases, as well as the Martin v. Coop factors. Merely because you have grandparents who are willing to pay you a retainer to try for visitation does not mean they have a viable case.
SOME RULE 59 PITFALLS
June 3, 2013 § Leave a comment
Here’s the scenario … You are unhappy with the judge’s ruling in the divorce, and so is your client. The judgment was entered 7 days ago, and you and your client agree that neither a post-trial motion nor an appeal were included in the fee you charged to this point. Your client promised to bring you another few hundred dollars to file an appropriate post-trial motion. She understands that a R59 motion will toll the time for appeal, giving her additional time to marshal her assets for an appeal, if necessary. She also understands that the R59 motion must be filed within ten days of the date of the judgment. But time is running out and you haven’t heard back from her. You call opposing counsel, who is quite accommodating and suggests you just send an agreed order extending the time to file. You want 30 days? No problem. He’ll sign.
Pondering your impending dilemma, you arrive at several options:
- You could send that agreed judgment extending the time to file a R59 motion. You could get it to the judge at least by the tenth day, getting you in under the wire.
- Or, you could go ahead without your client’s participation, and without compensation, and file that R59 motion anyway.
- Or, you could just let the ten days go by, and file a R60 motion after then, if you get paid.
- Or, you could just not file a post-trial motion, and let the client pay for an appeal only.
- Or you could do nothing, and let the sorry so and so just rot in the sun because you weren’t paid.
Let’s look at these one by one:
- The agreed order. Before you do this read R59. I’ll wait. [Humming Tom Petty’s You Don’t Know What It’s Like to be Me to myself]. Done? What did you find? Is there any provision to enlarge the time? Not specifically, you say, but it’s not precluded by the language of R59. True, but read on in the Comment, where it says, “The ten-day period may not be enlarged. MRCP 6(b)(2).” R6(b)(2) states that the court, ” … may not extend the time for taking any action under Rules 50(b), 52(b), 59(b), 59(d), 59(e), 60(b), and 60(c) except to the extent and under the conditions therein stated.” So that accommodating counsel opposite may really be a Br’er Fox luring you to your doom.
- Go ahead on your own. This is the option I would elect. Filing the motion gives your client maximum protection. All R59 relief is on the table, and the time for appeal is extended. If your client changes her mind, you can always dismiss the motion. What about the fact that the filing was not explicitly authorized by your client? You should have no culpability if your action is in your client’s best interest. And as for pay, you can settle that later. Your client’s best interest comes first.
- R60 motion instead of R59. Not the best option. R60 does not stop the 30-day appeal clock from running. The scope of R60 is quite different from R59.
- No post-trial motion. At first blush, not an entirely unacceptable choice. A post-trial motion is not a prerequisite to an appeal in chancery. One drawback, though, is that if no R59 motion is filed the appeal deadline continues to run unabated. Another drawback is that a R59 motion may alert the judge to some flaw in his or her decision that she could correct, saving your client the considerable expense of an appeal. And, a more subtle consideration is that R59 allows you to bring something to the attention of the trial judge that you may not have objected to or made your record on at trial, and which would thereby be barred on appeal if you did not give the trial judge a chance to rule on it before your appeal.
- Rot in the sun. Are you serious?
The confluence of entry of a judgment, deadlines for post-trial motions, and deadline for appeal create a perilous passage fraught with shoals and cross-currents that can cause you and your client great damage. Watch the clock and chart a course that will ensure both of you the greatest possible protection.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 