ONE MORE CONSIDERATION OF RECONSIDERATION
February 21, 2013 § 8 Comments
I posted here not too long ago about the vernacular use of “Motion for Reconsideration” as the post-trial motion that is MRCP 59.
It’s pretty widespread. I recently had a four-page post-order motion challenging a temporary ruling of mine. The motion did not invoke any MRCP at all, but every page included the words “reconsideration” or “reconsider” at least once. When I took the bench and announced that I would treat the motion as made per MRCP 59 (which was an indulgence, since I am convinced that MRCP 59 relief lies only as to final judgments; See, Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Thomas Truck Lease, Inc., 733 So.2d 313, 317-318 (Miss.App. 1998)), the proponent lawyer corrected me and said that it was actually a MRCP 60 motion for relief from judgment. Excuse me.
Judge Southwick back in 1999 addressed the subject in the case of Barber v. Balboa Life, 47 So.2d 863 (Miss.App. 1999), where he stated in footnote 3 at page 869:
“Pursuant to Rule 59 of M.R.C.P., relief following judgment is on motion for a new trial, not on motion to reconsider. Motions to reconsider, as previously known in practice and procedure in Mississippi prior to the adoption of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, have for all purposes and intent, been abolished and superceded [sic] by the aforementioned Rule 59 of M.R.C.P. It is suggested that the appellant apply Rule 59 of M.R.C.P. in the future under similar circumstances.”
That was 14 years ago. The footnote apparently didn’t have much impact.
I think the main reason most lawyers ask for reconsideration rather than rehearing, as the rule states, is that they absolutely do not want a rehearing. I mean, who really wants to retry what one has already tried? What they want the judge to do is take another look at the facts and/or the law and render a different result. That’s what rehearing has always looked like in chancery where the fact-finder and the judge of the law are one and the same. When the trial is over the fact-finder is not scattered to the far reaches of the county, as is the case with a jury. The fact-finder is right there in in the courthouse where she rendered the judgment in the first place. And she just might realize when confronted with the motion that a different outcome might be more equitable.
But the rule expressly says “rehearing.”
We judges are supposed to look past the form to the substance. When you use confusing language and do not invoke the proper rule, at best you will confuse the judge. At worst, you may find you’ve messed up your record for appeal.
FAILURE TO AMEND
February 19, 2013 § 1 Comment
It’s pretty common for lawyers to file pleadings subsequent to their initial pleading with updated allegations, added issues, and the word “Amended” prominently displayed in the document’s title. Quite often the lawyer on the other side treats the subsequent pleading(s) as the one(s) at issue, and the proof proceeds accordingly.
That practice, however, is not what the rules require, and, as we shall see, can cost your client big time. The proper procedure to amend pleadings is set out in MRCP 15:
(a) Amendments. A party may amend a pleading as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served, or, if a pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any time within thirty days after it is served. On sustaining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), or for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 12(c), leave to amend shall be granted when justice so requires upon conditions and within time as determined by the court, provided matters outside the pleadings are not presented at the hearing on the motion. Otherwise a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or upon written consent of the adverse party; leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. A party shall plead in response to an amended pleading within the time remaining for response to the original pleading or within ten days after service of the amended pleading, whichever period may be longer, unless the court otherwise orders.
and
(d) Supplemental Pleadings. Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit the party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences, or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. Permission may be granted even though the original pleading is defective in its statement of a claim for relief or defense. If the court deems it advisable that the adverse party plead to the supplemental pleading, it shall so order, specifying the time therefor.
So to amend after the deadline in R15(a), you have to get leave of court. Otherwise, that “Amended” pleading is a nullity.
That’s what happened in McKnight v. Jenkins, decided February 14, 2013, by the MSSC.
Holly McKnight filed a petition to modify custody against Walter Jenkins, the father of her child whom she had given custody in a prior judgment of the court. Walter countered with a counterclaim for contempt and for modification. The contempt allegation was based on Holly’s alleged failure to return all of the child’s belongings at the conclusion of visitation. Some time before the date set for hearing, Walter filed a motion to amend his pleading to add the allegation that Holly had failed to pay her share of the child’s medical expenses, but Walter never presented the motion to the court.
Following a hearing, the chancellor denied Holly’s petition to modify, but found her in contempt for failure to pay the medical bills, and ordered her to pay Walter $21,000 for her share.
The MSSC reversed, pointing out that in order to recover on a contempt claim, there must be a pleading putting the other party on notice. The unamended pleading simply did not support the relief granted. By failing to get a court order granting leave to amend, Walter’s award of $21,000 was reversed.
There is language in the opinion to the effect that the parties understood that the issue of contempt for failure to pay the medical bills was not properly before the court, and the judge acknowledged as much, but he went ahead and adjudicated contempt anyway, which was error. Of course, had the issue been tried without objection, Walter’s lawyer could have made a timely motion to conform the pleadings to the proof, as set out in MRCP 15(b):
(b) Amendment to Conform to the Evidence. When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by expressed or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure so to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so freely when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the admission of such evidence would prejudice the maintaining of the action or defense upon the merits. The court may grant a continuance to enable the objecting party to meet such evidence. The court is to be liberal in granting permission to amend when justice so requires.
POLICE REPORTS AS EVIDENCE
February 11, 2013 § 2 Comments
Police investigations and reports not infrequently play an evidentiary role in divorce and modification trials in chancery court.
A recent example is Heimert v. Heimert, handed down by the COA on November 13, 2012. In this case, Sheri and Walter Heimert had a history of physical altercations involving allegations of biting, strangling, hitting, and on and on, with the physical marks to show for it. The police were called multiple times to intervene, and two police reports, one from August, 2007, and the other from December, 2008, were offered into evidence. The December report showed that Sheri was charged with domestic violence. Her attorney objected that there was an inadequate foundation to admit it, but the chancellor let it in anyway, and Sheri complained on appeal that the report should not have been admitted.
The COA rejected Sheri’s argument. Judge Lee, for the court:
¶16. “Even though police reports, if offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted[,] are hearsay and the information within them may be based on hearsay, they may be admissible under the hearsay exception in [Mississippi] Rule [of Evidence] 803(8).” Rebelwood Apartments RP, LP v. English, 48 So. 3d 483, 491 (¶36) (Miss. 2010). Rule 803(8), entitled “Public Records and Reports,” states:
Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth . . . (C) in civil actions and proceedings and against the state in criminal cases, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.
¶17. The police report was taken after an investigation of domestic violence reported by Sheri. No assertion has been made that the document lacks trustworthiness. Sheri argues the police report was inadmissible because it was not authenticated. However, a document may be authenticated by the testimony of a witness with knowledge “that a matter is what it is claimed to be.” M.R.E. 901(b)(1). Sheri was a knowledgeable witness, and she submitted the police report as part of discovery. Sheri testified she was familiar with the document; thus, Sheri’s testimony was sufficient to show that the document was “what it [was] claimed to be” – the police report from December 5, 2008. See Cassibry v. Schlautman, 816 So. 2d 398, 403-04 (¶¶20-23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (finding medical records submitted by plaintiff in discovery were authenticated by plaintiff’s own testimony).
¶18. Further, Sheri testified consistently with the information in the police report, and Walter testified consistently with his version of events in the police report. Thus, even if the police report was admitted into evidence erroneously, the admission was harmless, as it was cumulative. Id. at 404 (¶24) (holding admission of hearsay may be held harmless where corroborating evidence exists). Sheri complains she was prejudiced by the report because it only contained information provided by Walter. However, this is not the case. The report clearly contains information gathered from both Walter and Sheri.
¶19. Sheri was familiar with the police report, and she submitted it as part of discovery. Further, the contents of the police report were corroborated by the testimony. We find the police report was properly admitted into evidence. This issue is without merit.
In other words, Sheri was hoist with her own petard. She herself corroborated the facts in the report in her testimony, and she herself had sifted the poison pill into the recipe by providing it in discovery, thus weakening her arguments against authenticity and trustworthiness.
One is left to wonder whether Sheri’s objections would have been upheld if Walter had been the sponsor of the report, and if Sheri had truthfully denied the facts in the report. What do you think? Don’t overlook this statement by Judge Lee: “The report clearly contains information gathered from both Walter and Sheri.”
YOU MIGHT WANT TO RECONSIDER YOUR MRCP 59 MOTIONS
February 7, 2013 § 1 Comment
Judge Griffis tells of a time that he filed a “Motion to Reconsider” in federal court after a judgment that he took issue with had been entered. Judge Lee, in his ruling, devoted the first page or two to pointing out that there is no such motion.
When I heard the story, I took exception and pointed out that even under our pre-MRCP practice there was a motion to reconsider, and that the MRCP even continues our pre-rules practice. I added that lawyers even today file motions to “reconsider.”
Well, I was wrong. Sort of.
MRCP 59 says that a new trial may be granted ” … in an action tried without a jury, for any of the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the courts of Mississippi.”
That’s rehearing, not reconsideration.
To discover the reasons for which rehearings were granted in pre-rules suits in equity, I consulted Griffith, Mississippi Chancery Practice, 2d Ed., 1950, which is the bible of pre-rules practice. Under that ancient practice, all the business of the court was conducted during the terms. All judgments became final on the last day of the term, unless the judge entered an order during the term that set a matter for hearing on a day outside the term (“in vacation”), and orders and decrees could not be altered or amended by the chancellor after the term ended except for some very limited circumstances.
During the term, all decrees and orders issued by the chancellor, even if filed, were considered to be “in the bosom of the court,” and could be changed, altered, withdrawn or vacated by the court at any time up to the close of the term, either on its own motion, or on motion of any party to the suit. The request to the court during the term was a “motion for rehearing,” and some of the bases mentioned by Griffith are: on the court’s on motion to vacate or modify its decree; reargument to point out an overlooked point of law; urging a different result based on something in evidence that the court failed to mention; and newly-discovered evidence (now an MRCP 60 matter).
So “the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the courts of Mississippi” include not merely a naked request for a new trial, but also a request for the chancellor to go back and study the evidence and the law again, to see whether perhaps a different result would have been reached. The judge could then, during the term, alter the decree or order, or withdraw it and direct a new trial.
That smells a lot like both reconsideration on the one hand, and rehearing on the other.
Even today in chancery court, lawyers may know under the rules that they are asking for rehearing, but they know, too, that they are asking for reconsideration. Out of curiosity, I asked my staff attorney to pull up the R59 motions that had been filed in the preceding year. Of the dozens filed, only a couple were styled or even asked for “rehearing.” Nearly every one was styled “Motion for Reconsideration,” or asked for reconsideration. That’s reconsideration, not rehearing.
Thus, I was sort of right, and sort of wrong in response to Judge Griffis. Right in the sense that the common usage is to call a R59 motion a request for reconsideration, and to ask for reconsideration. Wrong because the rule and pre-rule practice call for rehearing.
It’s not a big deal because the MSSC said many years ago after the MRCP went into effect that judges are to look to the substance of the motion, and not the form, and MRCP 8(f) mandates that pleadings be construed so as to do “substantial justice.” Thus, what you call the motion, and whether you ask for rehearing or reconsideration, is less important than clearly invoking MRCP 59.
Most “Motions for Reconsideration” are just that. They ask the court, “Please, take a look at this one more time and, please, change your mind.” That’s not in keeping with the rehearing language of R59, but it definitely captures what the pre-rules practice was. As the COA said in Brown v. Weatherspoon, which is a R60 case, but the principle is the same, “Finality should yield to fairness.”
Don’t worry too much about getting caught with your proverbial pants down in an appeal because you called your R59 motion one for reconsideration, rather than rehearing. It appears that reconsideration is the vogue word for our appellate judges, too …
- Check this out from the COA decision in Estate of Ristroph v. Ristroph, decided in January, 2013: “John then filed a motion to reconsider under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 59. While awaiting the chancellor’s decision on John’s Rule 59 motion, Paul filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the other alleged inter vivos gifts, contending these claims were also time-barred under section 15-1-49. The chancellor denied John’s motion to reconsider the timeliness of his petition to set aside the warranty deed, and John appealed the denial to the Mississippi Supreme Court.”
- And this from the COA in Rodgers v. Moore, et al., decided in November, 2012: “According to the briefs, plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal with the chancery court. The chancery court entered an order on March 8, 2007, denying the motion to reconsider.”
I am sure there are more, but you get the picture.
STRIKE THREE — YER OUT
February 6, 2013 § Leave a comment
In Estate of Ristroph v. Ristroph, handed down by the COA on December 4, 2012, we confront yet again the mantra that an appeal from a judgment that disposes of fewer than all of the issues before the trial court, and which does not include a certification under MRCP 54(b), will be dismissed. In this case, the principle lands home with a triple whammy.
As you may recall, I’ve described MRCP 54(b) here as the “Graveyard of Appeals.” That’s because of the rule’s requirement that, if the trial judge directs entry of a judgment as to fewer than all of the issues, he or she must include a finding that there is no just reason for delay, and directing entry of a final, appealable judgment as to the issues decided. The trial judge’s certification must have a reasonable basis and must not be an abuse of discretion. If the judgment lacks the certification, the appellate court will lack jurisdiction because an appeal lies only from a final judgment (MRAP 5 does provide for an interlocutory appeal to the MSSC, but that is discretionary with that court, and these comments pertain to non-interlocutory appeals).
Undaunted by the express requirements of MRCP 54(b) and the ever-growing body of case law strictly applying it, lawyers continue to file appeals from judgments disposing of fewer than all of the issues, apparently drawn to the appellate process like moths to a flame — with similarly self-immolatory results.
In Ristroph, John Ristroph filed a pleading in his father’s estate to set aside a deed from his father to his brother Paul. He filed a separate pleading challenging certain inter vivos gifts from his father to Paul. Both pleadings alleged undue influence.
The chancellor dismissed the challenge to the deed based on statute of limitations.
John then filed a motion for rehearing pursuant to MRCP 59. Before the chancellor could rule on John’s motion, however, Paul, having once struck paydirt with his statute-of-limitations argument, filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that John’s inter vivos gifts claims were also time-barred.
The chancellor entered an order overruling John’s MRCP 59 motion for rehearing, and John appealed. <STRIKE ONE>
While the appeal was pending, John filed a motion under MRCP 60 asserting a new argument based on lack of consideration.
The chancellor then overruled John’s MRCP 60 motion, as well as Paul’s motion for summary judgment. John filed yet another an appeal from this latest adversity. <STRIKE TWO>
The MSSC bundled John’s two appeals together and sent them downstairs to the COA, where they landed with a thump on the desk of Judge Maxwell, who astutely pointed out that the chancellor was not yet through with the case at the trial level because the claims as to the inter vivos gifts remained unresolved. Ergo, no jurisdiction. <STRIKE THREE — YER OUT>
From where I sit — reading an appellate judge’s interpretation of a cold record — I find it hard to grasp why and how attorneys are filing appeals from less-than-fully-dispositive judgments without a R54(b) certification. Here we had not one, but two, untimely appeals in the same case. That may be some kind of record. John’s counsel on appeal does get a “Z” for zealously representing his client, I guess, but still, two untimely appeals (strikes one and two) and a dismissal (strike three). That’s got to smart a little.
DRINKING YOUR OWN TOXIC COCKTAIL
January 28, 2013 § Leave a comment
When you pursue litigation that you know is not meritorious, and you learn in discovery that you have no possible hope of prevailing, and you file an improper motion for recusal with false allegations against the court, you have concocted a toxic cocktail that, when consumed, will burn a deep hole in your pocketbook by way of sanctions. Need proof?
Consider the case of Sullivan and Stubbs v. Maddox, decided by the COA on January 22, 2013.
Sullivan, represented by his attorney, Stubbs (both collectively referred to as “Sullivan” in the COA opinion), filed suit in 2005 to confirm and quiet title to some property, based on a claim of adverse possession. His suit was prompted by the Maddoxes’ claim to the same property. When he initiated the suit, he obtained an injunction to keep the Maddoxes off of the property.
The suit apparently languished for years.
In April, 2011, the Maddoxes filed a motion for summary judgment taking the position that title to the property was vested in the United States, and that neither Sullivan nor Maddox had any claim to it by adverse possession because federal law prohibits adverse possession against the federal government.
Five days later Sullivan filed a motion asking the chancellor to recuse himself. The Maddoxes responded that the motion was untimely filed and was fatally defective for failure to include an affidavit setting forth the factual basis, both as set out in UCCR 1.11.
On May 3, 2011, the parties appeared before the court for a hearing on both motions, and the recusal motion was taken up first. Sullivan took the position that the chancellor should recuse because one of the Maddoxes’ attorneys had represented the judge’s court administrator’s husband in a criminal matter. The judge acknowledged the fact, as well as that Stubbs had represented the court administrator in a divorce action. He rejected both bases as causes to recuse, because neither would cause a reasonable person, knowing the pertinent facts, to doubt the court’s impartiality. The judge also found that the recusal motion failed to comply with UCCR 1.11 for the reasons assigned by the Maddoxes.
In the course of presenting the motion, Stubbs attempted to make a proffer alleging an unreported campaign contribution to the chancellor. The charge had not been included in the motion to recuse, and there was no affidavit to support it.
The court went on to hear the motion for summary judgment. In his ruling, the judge granted summary judgment in favor of the Maddoxes. He stated in his opinion that Stubbs had disclosed to the court that he had warned Sullivan before he filed the suit that it was a weak case, that there was no government survey or patent out of the US to support his claim, and that there was no color of title. The judge also found that the unsubstantiated accusation against him was made as a threat by counsel, and he set a hearing date for possible sanctions.
The Maddoxes filed a motion for sanctions under MRCP 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act. Based on all of the proceedings to that point, as well as the record made on the motion, the chancellor assessed sanctions against Sullivan and Stubbs jointly, in the amount of $42,922.91. As the COA opinion, by Judge Carlton, stated at ¶11:
In sanctioning Sullivan and Stubbs, the chancellor specifically found that the following actions demonstrated frivolous pleadings had been filed and frivolous arguments had been made for the purposes of harassment and delay, without substantial justification, and with disrespect for the integrity of the court: (1) Stubbs’s admission that before commencement of the action he had advised Sullivan of the weakness of his claim to confirm and quiet title; (2) Sullivan and Stubbs’s failure to abandon the claim after their expert witness testified in his deposition that the United States had issued no patent for the subject property; (3) Sullivan and Stubbs’s failure to make any effort to determine the validity of the claim before raising it; and (4) the filing of an improper motion for recusal and false allegations against the court. The chancellor held that these various actions constituted a willful violation of Rule 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act, as well as Rule 8.2(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (prohibiting a lawyer from making a statement that he knows to be false or making a statement with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge).
The COA affirmed the chancellor on all points.
The serious lesson to take from this case is that Rule 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act have bite. So do the Rules of Professional Conduct. MRCP 11 specifically states that an attorney’s signature on a pleading (and that includes not only initial complaints, but also all motions) “” … constitutes a certificate that … to the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it, and it is not interposed for delay,” and goes on to provide for sanctions for its enforcement.
When in the course of a hearing you recklessly throw out unsubstantiated charges against the court, you are giving the judge no alterntive but to sanction you. To do otherwise the chancellor would be derelict in her duty to preserve the dignity and respect of the court, as provided in UCCR 1.01.
When you learn in the course of a lawsuit that it is not meritorious, and that there is no hope of prevailing, counsel your client to dismiss it. If your client will not cooperate, file a motion to withdraw, and do not put it off, because the judge can deny your motion if it would delay the trial, and you would then be at risk for sharing your client’s sanctions, if the court assesses them.
Don’t put yourself in a position where you have to drink that toxic cocktail that you yourself concocted.
THE GREAT RESERVOIR OF EQUITABLE POWER
January 24, 2013 § Leave a comment
We talked here about the COA decision in Brown v. Weatherspoon, handed down November 6, 2012. That earlier post dealt with attorney’s fees.
There is another aspect of the case that warrants your attention. It has to do with MRCP 60(b)(6).
In the case at the trial level, Kenyader Weatherspoon had agreed to a court order, entered in 2002, adjudicating him to be the father of a child born to Serhonda Brown. In 2008, the opinion tells us, Weatherspoon agreed to DNA testing to determine parentage (the opinion is silent as to who prompted the testing, and why he agreed to it). The test results came in showing zero probability that he was the father, and five months later he filed a pleading seeking to set aside the prior judgment under MRCP 60(b)(6), which allows a court to relieve a party from a judgment for “any other reason justifying relief from judgment.” The chancellor set aside the judgment, and Brown appealed.
Judge Roberts’ opinion succinctly states the law that applies in this instance:
¶12. The chancellor granted Weatherspoon’s motion under Rule 60(b)(6). “Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is reserved for extraordinary and compelling circumstances.” [MAS v. Miss. DHS, 842 So.2d 527.] at 530 (¶12). Rule 60(b)(6) has also been described as “grand reservoir of equitable power to do justice in a particular case.” Id. But it “is not an escape hatch for litigants who had procedural opportunities afforded under other rules and who without cause failed to pursue those procedural remedies.” Id.
¶13. In M.A.S., a man had consented to paternity of a child, but through DNA testing he later learned that he was not the child’s biological father. M.A.S., 842 So. 2d at 528 (¶1). M.A.S. successfully moved to set aside the prior order of filiation. Id. at 529 (¶5). The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the decision to set aside an order of filiation and stated that M.A.S. was “the archetype for the application of Rule 60(b)(6).” Id. at (¶18). Despite the fact that the movant in M.A.S. had paid child support for ten years, the supreme court held that he had filed his Rule 60(b) motion within a reasonable time after he learned that he was not the child’s father. Id. at 530 (¶15). Brown notes that the movant in M.A.S. was seventeen years old when he signed a stipulated paternity agreement. Id. at 528 (¶3). Brown argues that this case is distinguished from M.A.S. because Weatherspoon was twenty-four when he signed the stipulated paternity agreement. But the M.A.S. court did not base any part of its rationale on the movant’s age.
¶14. Brown also claims Weatherspoon’s motion was untimely. A Rule 60(b)(6) motion is timely if it is filed “within a reasonable time.” M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6). “What constitutes reasonable time must of necessity depend upon the facts in each individual case.” M.A.S., 842 So. 2d at 530 (¶14) (citation omitted). Relevant factors include whether the movant’s delay prejudiced the nonmoving party and whether there is a good reason for the movant’s delay. Id. According to Brown, Weatherspoon’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion was untimely because he filed it more than six years after he signed the stipulated paternity order. But the supreme court has held that the movant in M.A.S. timely filed his Rule 60(b)(6) motion even though he did so approximately nine years after he signed a stipulated paternity order. Id. at (¶13).
¶15. Weatherspoon did not definitively learn that M.B. was not his child until shortly after DNA testing was completed on March 19, 2008. The record does not indicate that Weatherspoon had earlier opportunities to seek DNA testing. He filed his Rule 60(b)(6) motion approximately five months later. Under the circumstances, the chancellor did not abuse her discretion when she implicitly found good cause for Weatherspoon’s delay. Moreover, Brown was not prejudiced by Weatherspoon’s delay. Although he had accrued unpaid child support, Weatherspoon paid Brown a significant amount of child support for a child who was not his.
¶16. “Consideration of a Rule 60(b) motion does require that a balance be struck between granting a litigant a hearing on the merits with the need and desire to achieve finality.” M.A.S., 842 So. 2d at 531 (¶17) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Weatherspoon has been obligated to pay and has paid child support for someone else’s child. As the supreme court stated in M.A.S., “finality should yield to fairness here.” Id. Following M.A.S., we find that the chancellor did not abuse her discretion when she granted Weatherspoon’s Rule 60(b) motion. There is no merit to this issue.
“Finality should yield to fairness here.” Indeed.
When no other avenue for relief appears viable, consider Rule 60. There might just be a way to get what your client wants by using that rule, particularly (b)(6).
Remember, though, that the motion must be filed within a reasonable time, and it will not work where your client esszentially slept on his or her rights. You can read a dramatic example at this previous post, which did not involve Rule 60 per se, but which illustrates the ruinous effect of slumbering on one’s rights.
HOW WOULD YOU OVERHAUL MRCP 81?
January 22, 2013 § 6 Comments
Everyone who has had some experience with MRCP 81 has an opinion about it.
Most chancery lawyers and judges have come to grips with it over the years and have found ways to make it work. Some, however, have grown to hate it. Changing or eliminating the rule is a topic touched on and even seriously discussed at judges’ meetings.
If you could change Rule 81, would you? And, if so, how would you change it?
Every time I ask an opponent of the rule to catalog the objections and outline how it should be changed, I get fulmination, not recommendation. What I want to know is:
- what do you perceive to be the problems with the rule?
- what about it has caused you problems?
- if it is not working in a particular district, why do you think that is?
- if we were to eliminate the rule, how should we deal with short-notice matters like temporary hearings and the like?
- does chancery court need its own, unique procedural rules?
There are other questions, I am sure, but those are a start.
I invite any lawyers or judges to comment on this, or, if you prefer, email me at primeauxl@yahoo.com.
This is not an idle exercise. I am on the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules, and I am hearing rumblings that this is a matter that will come up for discussion soon. I would appreciate as much input as I can get. Many of you tell me you read but don’t comment. This is a time for you to have your say.
RECUSAL MERRY-GO-ROUND
January 17, 2013 § Leave a comment
I started to do a post to call your attention to the entertaining COA decision in the case of Boatwright v. Boatwright, but Lost Gap does such a good job expounding on it that I will simply defer and let you read about it there in a post titled, “MRCP 63 – Have you ever wondered what happens when a judge recuses after judgment but before ruling on post-trial motions?”
Enjoy.
FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS AND THE OPINION
January 16, 2013 § Leave a comment
Can a chancellor order alimony in an opinion to take effect before entry of the judgment?
That was the question in McCarrell v. McCarrell, 19 So.3d 168, 171 (Miss.App. 2009). In that divorce case, the chancellor had rendered a written opinion on December 20, 2007, concluding that Billy McCarrell should pay Janie McCarrell $1,800 a month in rehabilitative alimony, commencing January 5, 2008, and continuing for five years. The judgment corresponding to the court’s opinion was not filed and docketed by the clerk until January 18, 2008, thirteen days after the date of the first ordered payment. The judgment did incorporate the judge’s opinion.
Billy took the position that he was required only to comply with the final judgment, and not with the opinion. Since the final judgment was not entered until after the initial payment date was passed, he argued that the alimony obligation did not go into effect until after the date of the judgment.
On the face of it, Billy’s position makes some sense, because MRCP 58 states that “A judgment shall be effective only when entered as provided in MRCP 79(a),” and 79(a) defines entry as docketing on the General Docket showing the date of entry and a brief description, followed by filing in the court file.
What Billy overlooked, though, was the power of the chancellor to order interlocutory and temporary relief. The court said, beginning at ¶12:
… our jurisprudence recognizes that the chancellor possesses the statutory authority to order temporary alimony and make proper orders and judgments thereon. Miss.Code Ann. § 93-5-17(2) (Miss.2004). Moreover, courts are always deemed open for purposes of making and directing all interlocutory motions, orders, and rules. See also M.R.C.P. 77(a). * * *
¶ 14. Certainly, the chancellor possesses the authority to order temporary alimony and make all proper orders and judgments thereon. Miss.Code Ann. § 93-5-17(2); M.R.C.P. 77(a); see also Langdon v. Langdon, 854 So.2d 485, 496(¶ 44) (Miss.Ct.App.2003). The duty to pay temporary support terminates upon entry of the final judgment of divorce, but the judgment does not eliminate the obligation to pay temporary alimony arrearages which accrued before the entry of the final decree. Prescott v. Prescott, 736 So.2d 409, 416(¶ 35) (Miss.Ct.App.1999) (citing Lewis v. Lewis, 586 So.2d 740, 741 (Miss.1991)). Stated differently, a temporary order is not a final order; however, arrearages accrue on unpaid temporary support payments. Id. Further, temporary support orders are enforceable through contempt actions. [McCardle v.] McCardle, 862 So.2d at 1292(¶ 9); see also Bell on Mississippi Family Law § 9.01[5][c], at 236 (2005).
In this district, more often than not in more complicated cases I render a detailed opinion making findings of fact and conclusions of law, and I direct one of the attorneys to draft a judgment corresponding to the opinion, with instructions to present it to the court after it has been approved as to form by counsel opposite. Every now and then, a judgment will be delayed for one reason or another. McCarrell addresses what happens to the relief granted in that situation.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 