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.
SELF-INFLICTED DISMISSAL
April 24, 2013 § Leave a comment
The COA case of Maurer v. Maurer, handed down April 9, 2013, calls our attention yet again to the phenomenon of the self-represented parties and the imaginative ways that they can inflict damage on their interests using the legal system for that purpose.
Raven and Michael were divorced in 2006. Commencing in 2007, they engaged in a long-running battle over custody and visitation in which allegations of sexual abuse were made, a GAL was appointed, a termination of parental rights action was filed, custody orders were entered bouncing the children from one parent to the other, and, finally, a hearing was held in 2011, on the termination of parental rights, pleadings for modification of both visitation and child support, and multiple contempt allegations.
The chancellor ruled against Raven’s termination request and found Michael in contempt for failure to pay child support. But the judge did not adjudicate the amount of the arrearage or the amount of reduction in child support Michael should have; instead, she ordered the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on those issues.
Raven filed a pro se appeal. Michael is listed as pro se in the appeal, also.
Just for fun, let’s have a little quiz on how the COA ruled. Multiple choice, pick the likely outcome:
(A) The appeal is dismissed because this was an MRCP 81 action at trial, and MRCP 81 is hopelessly outdated and anachronistic and too complicated for pro se litigants to comprehend;
(2) The appeal is dismissed based on MRCP 44.1, determination of foreign law; or
(x) The appeal is dismissed because the chancellor’s “final judgment” adjudicated fewer than all of the contested issues, and there was no certification per MRCP 54(b).
If you guessed (x), you’re right. As the court’s opinion, by Judge Maxwell, stated, although the chancellor adjudicated “the vast majority of disputed issues,” there were matters left unaddressed, so there was no final, appealable judgment, and the COA has no jurisdiction unless there had been a certification under MRCP 54(b), or Raven had gotten leave to file an interlocutory appeal, which (surprise, surprise) she did not do.
The only remarkable thing to me about this case is how people, heedless of the legal harm and expense they can inflict on themselves, persist in pursuing complex legal matters pro se. We’ve seen many cases over the past several years where the R54(b) snare tripped even skilled lawyers; how is a lay person to know how to negotiate these shoal waters? As I have observed many times, I have never seen a pro se litigant walk out of the court room in better shape than when he or she walked in. Raven went to a lot of expense in this appeal for nothing.
WHIRLPOOL OF POST-TRIAL RELIEF
April 22, 2013 § 3 Comments
Anyone who has ever canoed or kayaked a swift-flowing stream knows that you can get caught in a whirlpool of cross-currents that is mighty difficult to get free of, and, instead of paddling along one’s intended course, one paddles frantically to break loose.
That’s the effect of what happened in McBride v. McBride, a COA case decided April 2, 2013. In that case, Robert and Vanessa were involved in a divorce. The court rendered a final judgment, and Vanessa filed a Rule 59 motion for rehearing (which she styled as a motion for reconsideration, btw). Some four months later Robert filed his “Motion for rehearing on Vanessa McBride’s Motion for Reconsideration, or, in the Alternative, for New Trial.” So, what we have here is a motion to “reconsider” the reconsideration; a post-trial whirlpool, if you will. Vanessa appealed.
In its opinion, the COA says at ¶13, “In her brief, Vanessa claims that Robert’s motion was not allowed ‘as the law allows one motion for reconsideration/new trial after a judgment is entered.’ Yet, Vanessa does not cite any authority for this legal principle.” And at ¶16: “As much as we may like to impose a one-motion-for-reconsideration rule, there is simply no authority to impose such a limitation …”
Now, it’s unclear to me exactly what Vanessa was attempting to argue with her one-motion claim, but I do believe there is a one-motion-for-Rule 59- relief rule expounded by our courts. In Edwards v. Roberts, 771 So.2d 378, (Miss.App. 2000), the COA addressed the issue in the context of a circuit court ruling on a motion for a new trial, which is the circuit court counterpart to the chancery court motion for rehearing, both of which are brought under MRCP 59. Here’s what the court said:
¶ 21. We start with the settled law that after a motion for new trial has been denied, no right exists to file for reconsideration. We find that reasoning equally applicable to motions for JNOV. “When the procedure authorizing a motion for a new trial has been followed and, pursuant to proper notice, the parties have made their representations to the court, and the court has duly considered and made his decision upon that motion, that completes both the duty and the prerogative of the court.” Griffin v. State, 565 So.2d 545, 550 (Miss.1990) (emphasis added). In Griffin, the lower court sustained two criminal defendants’ motion for new trial as to two of the counts, and overruled as to one count. Id. at 545. The defendants fled and were captured several years later. Id. At that time the State moved to set aside the order granting a new trial. Id. The judge sustained the State’s motions because he believed that he had made an error at law in granting a new trial. Id. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the judge had no authority to revoke his earlier order for a new trial. Id.
¶ 22. The Griffin court relied on other states that had addressed the same question. Among other authorities, the court quoted the California Supreme Court’s holding that, “It has long been the rule that ‘A final order granting or denying [a motion for a new trial], regularly made, exhausts the court’s jurisdiction, and cannot be set aside or modified by the trial court except to correct clerical error or to give relief from inadvertence….’ ” Griffin, 565 So.2d at 549 (citing Wenzoski v. Central Banking Sys., 43 Cal.3d 539, 237 Cal.Rptr. 167, 736 P.2d 753, 754 (1987)). Once a motion for new trial has been ruled upon:
[I]f the party ruled against were permitted to go beyond the rules, make a motion for reconsideration, and persuade the judge to reverse himself, the question arises, why should not the other party who is now ruled against be permitted to make a motion for re-re-consideration, asking the court to again reverse himself? … This reflection brings one to realize what an unsatisfactory situation would exist if a judge could carry in his mind indefinitely a state of uncertainty as to what the final resolution of the matter should be.
Griffin, 565 So.2d at 549–50 (citing Drury v. Lunceford, 18 Utah 2d 74, 415 P.2d 662, 663–64 (1966)).
[9] ¶ 23. Though Griffin is a criminal case, the Supreme Court’s principal authorities for holding it improper to move for reconsideration of a motion for new trial were civil cases under versions of Rule 59. The Supreme Court’s conclusion that ruling on one motion for new trial exhausts the power of the court to entertain another such motion, certainly has an impact here. Until a judgment is final, a court has the authority to amend it. Griffin v. Tall Timbers Development, Inc., 681 So.2d 546, 552 (Miss.1996). Conversely, once it is final the authority is lost. The court’s initiating it own reconsideration removes the finality of the judgment after an earlier motion was denied. That creates the same difficulties that were discussed in Griffin v. State. Just as a second motion under Rule 59(a) cannot be brought by a party after an earlier Rule 59(a) motion has been denied, neither can the trial court itself entertain its own reconsideration under Rule 59(d) or Rule 50(b).
¶ 24. This is not to say that the finality of the judgment created by the denial of the first motion for new trial is absolutely unchangeable. Griffin v. State itself says that one last tool remains—correcting clerical error, relieving inadvertence, responding to newly discovered evidence, or otherwise considering the grounds for a Rule 60 motion. Griffin, 565 So.2d at 549. Since the state and federal versions of Rule 60 are similar, we can seek a better understanding of what can be achieved under Rule 60 by examining an explanation of federal caselaw. The Mississippi Supreme Court has said “the federal construction of the counterpart rule will be ‘persuasive of what our construction of our similarly worded rule ought to be.’ ” Bruce v. Bruce, 587 So.2d 898, 903 (Miss.1991) (citation omitted). The following section of an eminent treatise on the federal rules first explains that a denial of a new trial motion cannot be reconsidered, and then suggests what remains:
Term time as both a grant and limitation upon the district court’s power over its final judgments has been eliminated.[ footnote omitted] In lieu thereof and in the interest of judgment finality a short time period, that is not subject to enlargement, has been substituted, within which a party may move for a new trial or to alter or amend the judgment. When the court has decided such a motion in a way that the finality of the judgment has been restored, then relief, if any, should come by appeal or by a motion under Rule 60(b), which does not affect the finality of the judgment or suspend its operation. It would be destructive of the general aim of the Rules to permit successive attacks upon final judgments on motions to reconsider orders that deny new trial, or that deny or grant an alteration or amendment of the judgment.
The logic is clear that if there were no limit to motions for rehearing, there would never be an appeal from a final judgment as long as the successive motions are pending. It would be like getting caught in that whirlpool when you’re trying to paddle to finality.
McBride was reversed and remanded on other grounds. Judge Griffis’s opinion addresses the vernacular use of the term “reconsideration” at ¶15. It’s a subject we’ve discussed here previously.
THE BITE OF PAST-DUE CHILD SUPPORT
April 16, 2013 § 1 Comment
MCA 85-3-4 deals with execution of garnishments in Mississippi. Most garnishments are limited to 25% of “disposible income,” as defined in federal law. But if the judgment is for past-due child support, the garnishment may be as much as 50-65% of disposible income. That’s quite a bite.
In the MSSC case of Reasor v. Jordan, decided April 4, 2013, Frankie Reasor had gotten custody of his daughter from his ex-wife, Rose Jordan, in a modification case. He was also tagged with a hefty $24,000 judgment for past-due child support and unpaid medical expenses of the child that predated the modification. The chancellor popped Frankie with a 55% garnishment, and, both impoverished and aggrieved, he appealed.
Here’s how Justice King’s majority opinion addressed the issue:
¶27. The Court has addressed this issue previously in Sorrell v. Borner, 593 So. 2d 986 (Miss. 1992). In Sorrell, the parents divorced, the mother was awarded custody, and the father was ordered to pay child support. Id. at 986. Later, the father sought a change in custody. Id. In response, the mother filed a counterclaim for past-due child support. Id. The chancellor awarded the father custody but held him in arrears, entering a judgment in favor of the mother for back child support. Id. The mother obtained a sixty-five percent garnishment on the father’s wages. Id. at 988. Aggrieved, the father filed a petition to modify the order (by offsetting his arrearage by the mother’s child-support obligation), and the chancellor denied his petition. Id. at 986-87.
¶28. On appeal, the father challenged the order, arguing that the garnishment should have been limited to twenty-five percent. Id. at 988. Although the father failed to attack the garnishment in his pleadings, the Court noted that the father made an oral objection at the hearing. Id. at 989. Reviewing the applicable statutes, the Court determined that:
The judgment awarded was for past due child-support, but [the mother] no longer had custody of the children. In our opinion, the legislature did not contemplate the exception language to be used in this situation, and [we] are of the opinion that the restriction listed in § 85-3-4(2)(a) should apply to the garnishment here.
Id. at 988. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the chancellor’s judgment. Id. at 988-89.
¶29. Applying the Court’s reasoning in Sorrell, the withholding restriction in Section 85-3-4(2)(a)(i) should apply to Reasor as well. Like Sorrell, Reasor complained about the amount of the garnishment during his hearing. Also, when the judgment was awarded for past-due child support, Jordan no longer had custody of the child. Thus, the chancellor erred by ordering a fifty-five-percent withholding. Instead, the garnishment should have been limited to twenty-five percent of Reasor’s disposable income. Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand for a proper determination of withholding.
The main thing to take from this case is to be aware of the generous garnishment provisions as they relate to unpaid support. As I read the statute, they would apply not only to child support, but also to alimony.
When you read this case, look also at the MRCP 81 issues raised by the way that the original chancellor handled the case. I agree with Justice Pierce’s concurrance/dissent on this issue. R81 requires notice. I don’t agree that Mr. Reasor got proper notice in this case. Chalk this up as another case added to the confusion over how R81 works.
WHAT IS YOUR DUTY WHEN YOUR FIDUCIARY-CLIENT IS DERELICT IN HIS DUTIES?
April 11, 2013 § 2 Comments
It seems to be a more and more frequent problem that when we issue orders in delinquent estates, an attorney pops up and says something like, “Well, judge, the reason we haven’t filed an inventory, or any accountings since 1997 is that I lost contact with the fiduciary.”
Who’s got the problem in that situation?
Well, UCCR 6.02 says this about that:
In guardianships and conservatorships an attorney must be faithful to both fiduciary and the ward and if it appears to the attorney that the fiduciary is not properly performing duties required by the law then he shall promptly notify the Court in which the estate is being administered. Failure to observe this rule without just cause shall constitute contempt for which the Chancellor will impose appropriate penalties.
And what exactly are those “duties required by law?” Here’s what UCCR 6.02 says:
Every fiduciary and his attorney must be diligent in the performance of his duties. They must see to it that publication for creditors is promptly made, that inventories, appraisements, accounts and all other reports and proceedings are made, done, filed and presented within the time required by law, and that the estates of decedents are completed and assets distributed as speedily as may be reasonably possible.
It’s pretty clear from the language of the rule that your neck is in the noose along with your fiduciary. If the requirements are not met, you are as responsible for the lapse as is your fiduciary. Oh, and explaining to the chancellor that you had no idea that the Uniform Chancery Court Rules had this provision will in all likelihood only make things worse.
Here are some helpful posts from the past … Five Mistakes that Fiduciaries Make … Five More Mistakes that Fiduciaries Make … Approaching Zero Tolerance … and … Essential Procedures in Guardianships and Conservatorships.
If the landscape of your probate practice is littered with failures to file accountings, inventories and other reports, and you have estates that due to sheer neglect are languishing unclosed far beyond what is reasonable, look no farther than yourself for a place to lay the blame. That’s where the judge will look.
APPEARANCES ARE NOT DECEIVING
April 8, 2013 § 2 Comments
The COA’s decision in Richard v. Garma-Fernandez, handed down March 19, 2013, is one every chancery practitioner should read and appreciate for the ramifications of entering an appearance on behalf of a party.
In this case, Emilio Garma-Fernandez (hereinafter EGF) filed suit against 10 defendants, including Richard, based on a commercial contract. The suit alleged claims for accounting, imposition of resulting and constructive trusts, equitable ownership, injunction, breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, anticipatory breach, and other issues giving rise to damages and attorney’s fees.
Richard was not personally served with process, but an attorney, White, notified EGF’s attorney that she was representing him and five other defendants, and, based on that contact, EGF’s lawyer from that point on sent all communication and pleadings to White on behalf of Richard. After that, when Richard attempted to communicate with EGF’s lawyer, the lawyer directed him to stop because he was represented by counsel.
In due course, White filed a pleading styled “Motion, Answers, Defenses and Counterclaims” of certain named defendants, including the name of Richard (“Richards” in the pleading).
EGF’s lawyer served discovery requests on Richard through White, and White did not respond. The chancellor ruled that any matters not produced in discovery would be inadmissible at trial, and that the matters request to be admitted were taken as admitted. He further dismissed Richard’s counterclaim with prejudice and awarded attorney’s fees to EGF.
EGF then filed a motion for summary judgment against Richard. White asked for more time to respond, claiming she could not locate Richard, that his file was in storage because she had moved her office, and that since Richard was located in Virginia he needed additional time. Nearly two months later the court granted summary judgment. When EGF began collection proceedings in Virginia, Richard filed a limited appearance to contest jurisdiction and for relief from judgment per MRCP 60, claiming that White did not represent him, and among other items of evidence offered White’s affidavit that she had listed him in error as one of the parties she did represent in the action. The chancellor ruled that Richard had entered his appearance, submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court via attorney White, and denied him relief. He appealed.
The COA affirmed. I quote at length:
¶19. Richard filed a motion for relief from judgment under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60. Rule 60(b)(4) provides: “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reason[s]: . . . (4) the judgment is void.” A judgment is void if the rendering court lacked personal or subject-matter jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Overbey v. Murray, 569 So. 2d 303, 306 (Miss. 1990) (citations omitted).
¶20. The question presented is whether Garma-Fernandez’s judgment was void because the chancery court lacked personal jurisdiction over Richard. For a judgment to be valid, the court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties to the action. James v. McMullen, 733 So. 2d 358, 359 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).
¶21. A court obtains personal jurisdiction over a defendant in one of two ways. Personal jurisdiction is established when a defendant is properly served the summons and complaint under Rule 4 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Personal jurisdiction is also established when a defendant voluntarily enters an appearance. Isom v. Jernigan, 840 So. 2d 104, 107 (¶9) (Miss. 2003) (citations omitted). “One waives process and service . . . upon making a general appearance.” Id.
¶22. Richard was not served with Rule 4 process. However, Richard entered an appearance in this case when White filed a responsive pleading on his behalf. When White filed the responsive pleading on September 24, 2009, Richard voluntarily entered an appearance in the Chancery Court of Oktibbeha County and was subjected to the jurisdiction of the court. The fact that Richard was not served with process under Rule 4 no longer mattered.
¶23. Despite this voluntary appearance through attorney White, Richard could have contested both personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process in the responsive pleading. See M.R.C.P. 12(b)(2), (5). He did not. The result was that the responsive pleading, without the Rule 12(b) defense asserted, waived his right to contest personal jurisdiction. See M.R.C.P. 12(h)(1). “[T]he right to contest the court’s jurisdiction based on some perceived problem with service may yet be lost after making an appearance in the case if the issues related to jurisdiction are not raised at the first opportunity.” Schustz v. Buccaneer, Inc., 850 So. 2d 209, 213 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). “Thus, a defendant appearing and filing an answer or otherwise proceeding to defend the case on the merits in some way—such as participating in hearings or discovery—may not subsequently attempt to assert jurisdictional questions based on claims of defects in service of process.” Id.
¶24. Our inquiry does not end here. Richard argues that a Mississippi attorney cannot give a Mississippi court personal jurisdiction over a nonresident unless that attorney has been hired by the nonresident. Richard’s brief cites, but does not discuss, Rains v. Gardner, 719 So. 2d 768 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998).
¶25. In Rains, this Court acknowledged that an individual can waive process, and an authorized attorney may enter an appearance on his behalf. Id. at 770 (¶7). When this issue is raised, the party that claims an appearance has been made bears the burden of proof. Id.
¶26. One defendant, Ginger Gardner, was represented by an attorney. Id. at 769 (¶5). Gardner’s attorney appeared on her behalf but argued that the other defendant, Tina Clark, whom the attorney did not represent, should also be dismissed from the action. Id. When the court asked the attorney whether he represented both defendants, the attorney definitively stated he only represented one (Gardner). Id. Nevertheless, the attorney renewed his argument that both defendants (Gardner and Clark) should be dismissed. Id. The plaintiff, Hazel Rains, argued that Gardner’s attorney’s actions constituted a voluntary appearance on behalf of Clark. Id. The trial court rejected that argument, and Rains appealed. Id. at (¶¶5-6).
¶27. This Court found that because there was not “even a hint of evidence” that the attorney actually represented Clark, Rains’s argument had no merit. Id. at 770 (¶7). This Court also noted that even if the attorney had made extensive arguments on the unrepresented defendant’s behalf, the attorney could not have entered a voluntary appearance on behalf of the individual if he acted without authority. Id.
¶28. This case is not factually similar to Rains. Here, White filed pleadings on behalf of Richard, and other defendants. The question the chancellor had to decide was whether Richard consented to or authorized White’s representation.
¶29. The chancellor determined that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that Richard consented to and authorized White’s representation. White filed the responsive pleading that specifically named Richard as a defendant [footnote omitted] whom she represented. Garma-Fernandez’s attorney served White with discovery for Richard. There was correspondence from Garma-Fernandez’s attorney to White that discussed her representation of Richard. The court entered an order compelling Richard to respond to discovery, with White acting as his attorney.
¶30. Also, the October 15, 2010 “Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Continuance” was filed only on Richard’s behalf. White represented herself as “his counsel of record.” White stated to the court that she had not been able to notify Richard of the motion for summary judgment, and that, because Richard was a Virginia resident, sixteen days was not enough time to make arrangements for him to appear at the hearing. Also, in this motion, White refers to Richard as “her client.”
¶31. We recognize that Richard’s affidavit attached to the limited-appearance motion claims that he never authorized White to act on his behalf. However, an assertion in Richard’s affidavit was contradicted by the evidence. White’s affidavit states that she was not and never had been Richard’s attorney. White’s affidavit, however, was contradicted by her previous assertions to the court. We agree with the chancellor that the credibility of both affidavits was undermined.
¶32. We find the evidence in the record demonstrates that White did, in fact, enter an appearance for Richard, and that she was his authorized representative in this action. Therefore, we find no merit to this issue and find no error in the chancellor’s judgment that found the court had personal jurisdiction over Richard. The chancery court’s personal jurisdiction over Richard was not based on Richard’s awareness of the lawsuit.
¶33. Next, Richard claims that knowledge of litigation is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. This Court has stated “even actual knowledge of a suit does not excuse proper service of process.” Blakeney v. Warren Cnty., 973 So. 2d 1037, 1040 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Mansour v. Charmax Indus., 680 So. 2d 852, 855 (Miss. 1996)).
¶34. As discussed above, the chancery court’s personal jurisdiction over Richard was not based on Richard’s awareness of the lawsuit. The chancellor correctly determined that the court gained personal jurisdiction over Richard through his general appearance. Therefore, we find no merit to this issue.
A few quick points:
- If you’re going to enter a special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction, make sure it’s the very first thing you file, even before an “Entry of Appearance” or a motion for more time. Any filing other than a pleading styled “Special Appearance to Contest Jurisdiction” can be construed as a personal, general appearance, even a simple motion for more time or that “Entry of Appearance.”
- When you file anything in a court file on behalf of a party, you are bound to represent that party, and the party is bound by your pleadings. Make sure you act within the authorized scope of your representation.
- I have seen cases where a lawyer signs off on an agreed order to reset a case in the hope that the party will hire the lawyer, but the fee never materialized. It’s no fun watching the lawyer trying to deny responsibility in the case while the client (innocently or not) claims that he/she is relying on that lawyer. If you inject your name into a case, you are in it until the judge lets you out.
- Losing contact with a client can have miserable results for the client. Clients who blame you for their misery can make your life mi$erable.
MUCH ADO ABOUT SOMETHING
March 18, 2013 § 2 Comments
Forbes v. St. Martin, et al., decided March 5, 2013, by the COA, is a tour de force on contingent fee contracts and their enforceability. If you do any contingent-fee work, this is a must-read for you. Actually, it’s a good opinion to read and examine as a case study in ethics.
The 41-page majority opinion was penned by Judge Griffis. The rest of the court went this way: “ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND FAIR, JJ., CONCUR. BARNES, J., CONCURS IN PART AND THE IN RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. MAXWELL, J., CONCURS IN PART AND IN THE RESULT WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION, JOINED IN PART BY ROBERTS, J. IRVING, P.J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION, JOINED BY LEE, C.J. JAMES, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.”
James Forbes had suffered catastrophic injuries in a gas-station explosion in Biloxi. Through a series of events he came to be represented in his personal injury claim by St. Martin, a Louisiana lawyer. Rather than qualifying to proceed pro hac vice, St. Martin instead associated a Mississippi lawyer and kept a rather low profile in the case, advising Forbes and his wife in the background and letting Mississippi counsel, with whom he corresponded regularly, take the lead in the record of the litigation.
The PI case was settled eventually for $13.6 million, and St. Martin’s fees, which were to be divided with Mississippi counsel, were $4.6 million.
Forbes filed suit against St. Martin and the Mississippi lawyer, and their respective firms, seeking to void the contingent-fee contract. The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, fraud and misrepresentation, conversion, rescission, imposition of a constructive trust, quantum merit, attorney’s fees, and actual and punitive damages. The Mississippi lawyer and his firm were dismissed, and St. Martin’s malpractice carrier was added as a defendant.
Both Forbes and St. Martin filed motions for summary judgment, and the chancellor ruled in favor of St. Martin.
The COA reversed and remanded. The ruling is too involved to go into detail here, but the court ruled that Forbes had presented enough evidence that there did exist a genuine issue of material fact so that summary judgment should not have been granted. Some of the findings of the COA:
- St. Martin made over $100,000 in “cash advances” to the Forbes, which they spent on a Bahamian vacation, a Caribbean cruise, a car, a cell phone, and “other personal expenses,” in violation of Rule 1.8(e) of the Rules of Professional Coduct;
- Unauthorized practice of law by St. Martin in Mississippi;
- The first contingent-fee contract was made while Forbes was under influence of narcotics;
- The second contract may have been the product of misleading or even fraudulent advice;
- Portions of the contract pertaining to ability to settle without counsel and ability to terminate counsel were in violation of Mississippi’s professional conduct rules.
So St. Martin returns to trial in chancery unless he can convince the MSSC to take the case on cert. That could happen if the MSSC wants to clarify the law in this area. Or, the high court could let the case finish its run through the trial court and then entertain it later. With millions at stake, it’s inconceivable that a later appeal would not result no matter what the ultimate trial outcome.
An interesting aspect of this case is that it is in essence a malpractice claim based on breach of fiduciary duties, which is not the usual and customary avenue that plaintiffs pursue in these cases.
The question at the heart of this appeal is whether an out-of-state lawyer may enter into an agreement with a Mississippi lawyer for joint representation of Mississippi litigants in a way that the out-of-state lawyer may avoid coming within the restrictions of the Mississippi rules of professional conduct and the scrutiny of our courts. The answer of the COA is “no.”
A subsidiary question is raised in Judge Maxwell’s partially concurring opinion, which challenges the majority’s definition of the practice of law. Judge Maxwell would not define it as expansively as did the majority. In my opinion, if the supreme court decides this phase of the case merits a look, this will be the battleground issue.
WHEN IS THE RETURN DOOR TO THE COURT ROOM LOCKED?
March 12, 2013 § Leave a comment
Some lawyers are confused about when and how a judgment precludes a return trip to court by operation of res judicata. The confusion is somewhat understandable, since in chancery court we often deal with return trips for modifications and contempts. It’s been discussed here before.
There are chancery cases, however, such as divorce judgments as to property and grounds, property disputes, suits for rescission and specific performance, actions to contest wills, and the like where res judicata can operate as a bar — or not.
The COA case of Rodgers v. Moore, et al., decided last November by the COA, is one of those cases. In 2004, the Moores filed suit to remove cloud on title against Mary Rodgers. In 2006, the suit was dismissed by the court without prejudice pursuant to MRCP 41(d) for failure to prosecute. In 2007, the Moores filed yet another suit, and Mary Rodgers, proceeding pro se, answered that the suit should be dismissed as res judicata due to the prior dismissal. There are some other procedural wrinkles in the case that do not directly pertain to my point here.
The chancellor ruled that the 2004-filed proceeding was not res judicata, and Mary appealed.
Judge Roberts, writing for the court that affirmed the chancellor’s ruling, gave us a handy exposition on the principles of res judicata and why they did not bar the 2007 suit:
¶10. Rodgers first asserts that the chancery court erred in finding that the doctrine of res judicata was not triggered in the current case. The doctrine of res judicata requires the presence of four identities before it is applicable, and the absence of any of the identities is “fatal to the defense of res judicata.” Hill v. Carroll Cnty., 17 So. 3d 1081, 1085 (¶10) (Miss. 2009) (citations omitted). The four identities are as follows: “(1) identity of the subject matter of the action; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the parties to the cause of action; and (4) identity of the quality or character of a person against whom the claim is made.” Id. (citing Harrison v. Chandler-Sampson Insurance, Inc., 891 So. 2d 224, 232 (¶24) (Miss. 2005)). Additionally, a fifth requirement is that there must be a final judgment adjudicated on the merits. See Harrison, 891 So. 2d at 232 (¶22); Beene v. Ferguson Auto., Inc., 37 So. 3d 695, 698 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). If these five things are established, then res judicata bars any claims that were brought in the prior action or could have been brought in the prior action. Hill, 17 So. 3d at 1084-85 (¶¶9-10).
¶11. Rodgers submits that the four identities are present. She also claims that the chancery court’s dismissal of the case filed in 2004 without prejudice was a final judgment on the merits. According to Rodgers, the plaintiffs in the first suit failed to show ownership of the property, thereby failing to establish superior title. We agree with Rodgers’ contention that the first, second, and fourth identities are present; however, we do not find that the third and fifth identities are necessarily present. The first identity is met because the subject matter of both suits was to remove a cloud on the title of a specific piece of land. The second is the identity of a cause of action. This “is found where there is a commonality among the ‘underlying facts and circumstances upon which the present claim is asserted and relief sought.’” Studdard v. Pitts, 72 So. 3d 1160, 1162 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Riley v. Moreland, 537 So. 2d 1348, 1354 (Miss. 1989)). The causes of action in both cases are the same. Fourth is the quality of the persons against whom the claim is made, which are also the same.
¶12. In dispute are the third identity and the fifth requirement. The third identity is whether the parties in both actions are the same or are in privity with the original parties. See Little v. V & G Welding Supply, Inc., 704 So. 2d 1336, 1339 (¶15) (Miss. 1997); Williams v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc., 825 So. 2d 685, 689 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). It is clear that the original parties to the suit are also parties in the second suit. However, the second suit contains several additional parties not in the original suit. What is unclear from the record is whether these additional parties were in privity with the original parties; nonetheless, the determination of this identity is not dispositive, as the fifth requirement is clearly not met.
¶13. The fifth requirement is that there has been a final adjudication on the merits in the original suit. We do not agree with Rodgers’s claim that the chancery court’s dismissal without prejudice of the 2004 case was an adjudication on the merits. In its October 11, 2010 opinion, the chancery court stated that the original case was dismissed “without ruling on any of the issues brought by either party[.]” In Williams, 825 So. 2d at 688 (¶12) (citing Stewart v. Guar. Bank & Trust Co. of Belzoni, 596 So. 2d 870, 872-73 (Miss. 1992)), this Court stated: “A voluntary dismissal taken without prejudice is not an adjudication on the merits and does not operate as res judicata in subsequent suits.” See also Ladnier v. City of Biloxi, 749 So. 2d 139, 156 (¶69) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). The chancery court’s dismissal of the 2004 case without prejudice was not an adjudication on the merits. The dismissal was on the ground that the “pleadings did not establish the [p]laintiffs as the proper parties to the litigation.” No issue involving the ownership of the disputed property was addressed by the chancery court; therefore, the chancery court was correct in finding that res judicata did not bar the second suit.
An MRCP 41(d) dismissal, then, is not a dismissal on the merits, is without prejudice, and will not operate as res judicata, because it is not a final judgment disposing of all claims in the case. Neither is a voluntary dismissal or any dismissal without prejudice. Don’t overlook, though, that a statute of limitations may run in the time that the case lies dismissed.
Modifications and contempts are not barred by res judicata because (1) the court retains jurisdiction to consider modification of certain issues, and to enforce its judgments, and (2) they are not a relitigation of the prior action, and they are based on and limited to matters occurring post the final judgment.
This case does not add anything substantive to my previous post on the subject, other than some additional authority that you can cite as needed, but it does illustrate the character of judgment that is necessary to operate as a bar.
WHEN THE JUDGE STICKS HIS NOSE INTO IT
March 4, 2013 § Leave a comment
Judges can be nosy. When no one is asking the question that the judge wants to know the answer to, you might just hear the judge start asking her own questions. I’ve talked about it in a post here before.
In the COA case of Knights’ Piping, Inc. and Knight v. Knight, et al., decided December 11, 2012, the appellant took issue with the chancellor’s frequent and vigorous interrogation of witnesses. The COA, by Judge Irving, found nothing improper in how the judge approached it:
¶14. Benny asserts that the chancery court erred in its interrogation of witnesses during trial. Under Rule 614(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, “[t]he court may interrogate witnesses, whether called by itself or by a party.” However, “it is grounds for reversal if the trial judge abuses the authority to call or question a witness by abandoning his impartial position as a judge and assuming an adversarial role.” Powell v. Ayars, 792 So. 2d 240, 248 (¶29) (Miss. 2001) (citation omitted).
¶15. While the chancery court interjected numerous times during the trial, we do not find that the court abused its discretion or abandoned its impartial position. Generally, the court’s questions were intended to clear up confusing testimony or encourage testimony from recalcitrant witnesses, which our supreme court has recognized as appropriate circumstances under which a trial judge may question witnesses. See id. at 248-49 (¶30). Additionally, the court gave the attorneys the opportunity to ask further questions of witnesses, if necessary, based on the court’s questions. This issue is without merit.
Lawyers in this district will tell you that I frequently ask questions to clarify or to get the information I feel that I need to make a decision. I always give the attorneys an opportunity to ask questions based on what I asked. Judge Mason, on the other hand, seldom asks questions. It’s a matter of personal discretion and style. In my years of practice, I can say that I saw about every variation on this theme that one could imagine, from active participation in the trial to stony, sweat-inducing silence.
Chancellors will tend also tend to get involved when they become convinced that the witness is being untruthful, or evasive, or that there is some other kind of chicanery taking place. In Knight, the chancellor became so impatient with evasive and non-responsive answers that he began deeming certain answers as admitted. The appellant again took issue, and the COA again rejected his argument:
¶16. Benny argues that the chancery court erred in deeming his alleged non-responsive answers to certain questions as admitted. For example, during cross-examination, the following exchange occurred between Benny and Harold’s attorney:
Q: And, of course, you indicated yesterday that Harold missed 30 days [of work] and so that’s—that’s why you fired him?
A: He also told me—
[THE COURT]: The answer is—for the witness—the witness is being evasive—is that is why he fired him because Harold missed 30 days. That’s the answer. Ask your next question.
Q: When you changed the locks, you denied Harold access to his property, correct?
A: I did not.
Q: Did you give him a key?
A: Couldn’t locate him.
[THE COURT]: The answer is—
[THE WITNESS]: No.
[THE COURT]: —he did not give him a key.
¶17. Based on our review of the record, the chancery court admonished several witnesses regarding non-responsive answers—not just Benny. Furthermore, Benny’s answers to the questions he complains about on appeal were evasive. Therefore, the chancery court did not err in presuming that the true answers would be unfavorable to Benny’s position and deeming his non-responsive answers as admissions. This issue is without merit.
Taking answers as admitted is an extreme measure, but it’s one that can be merited in a situation like the one in Knight, where the witnesses are not forthcoming.
As for the chancellor’s demeanor, it’s a simple fact that judges get exasperated, just like lawyers and parties do. It usually happens after a long, tedious stretch of trial where one frustration accumulates on another until the judge’s patience is exhausted, and he blows a gasket. Yes, it would be better to keep one’s cool, and calmly navigate through the perturbance, but judges are human, and they are focused on getting to the truth of what is the most equitable outcome in the case. Thwarted in that quest, they tend to get testy.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 