Rules | The Better Chancery Practice Blog

WHAT TO DO AFTER THE SPECIAL MASTER REPORTS

December 5, 2012 § Leave a comment

It is my practice to appoint guardians ad litem to serve as special masters pursuant to MRCP 53. That rule vests the special master with broad powers, including subpoena powers and auhority to hold evidentiary hearings. The ultimate function of the special master is to produce a report, which is addressed in MRCP 53(g), which reads as follows:

(g) Report.

(1) Contents and Filing. The master shall prepare a report upon the matters submitted to him by the order of reference and, if required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, he shall set them forth in the report. He shall file the report with the clerk of the court and, unless otherwise directed by the order of reference, shall file with it a transcript of the proceeding and of the evidence in the original exhibits. The clerk shall forthwith mail to all parties notice of the filing.

(2) Acceptance and Objections. The court shall accept the master’s findings of fact unless manifestly wrong. Within ten days after being served with notice of the filing of the report any party may serve written objections thereto upon the other parties. Application to the court for action upon the report and upon objections thereto shall be by motion and upon notice as provided by Rule 6(d). The court after hearing may adopt the report or modify it or may reject it in whole or in any part or may receive further evidence or may recommit it with instructions.

(3) Stipulation as to Findings. The effect of a master’s report is the same regardless of whether the parties have consented to the reference; however, when the parties stipulate that a master’s finding of fact shall be final, only questions of law arising upon the report shall thereafter be considered.

(4) Draft Report. Before filing his report a master may submit a draft thereof to counsel for all parties for the purpose of receiving their suggestions.

That provision for acceptance and objections is what tripped up the appellants in the COA case of Gettis and Montgomery v. Frison, decided October 30, 2012.

To make a long and sinuous train of events short, Gettis and Montgomery filed an objection to the special master’s report, but neither noticed it for hearing nor apparently served a copy of their objection on the judge. The chancellor entered an order adopting the report, and the objectors appealed.

The COA cited Miles v. Miles, 949 So.2d 774, 778-9 (Miss.App. 2006) for the proposition that the appellants can not complain that the were denied the right to a hearing when they did not comply with the procedural requirements of 53(g), which conditions the right to a hearing on the filing of an objection and motion and giving notice of hearing per MRCP 6(d).

If you are involved in a case where a special master has been appointed, be sure you read and comply with Rule 53 to the letter. The filing of an objection and a hearing thereon may be your only opportunity to get the report modified or tweaked for your client’s benefit, because 53(g)(2) specifically dictates that “The court shall accept the master’s findings of fact unless manifestly wrong.”

As I have said here many times: Read the rule. That hazy recollection from the last time you glanced at a part of it twelve years ago might not serve you well at all.

And a side note: In the Gettis and Montgomery case, the COA decision by Judge Irving points out several times that the appellants never filed a post-trial motionasking the chancellor to take another look at how the case had played out. The insinuation is that the judge may have relented and given them a chance to make a record, but we will never know that because they did not file a motion for rehearing. As we have discussed here before, you are not required to file a post-trial motion in chancery as a prerequisite to an appeal, but it may just give you that one more bite at the apple that you need.

A CAVEAT ABOUT PROCESS BY CERTIFIED MAIL

December 3, 2012 § Leave a comment

MRCP 4(c)(5) allows for process by certified mail on a natural person outside the state. There are two requirements: (1) that a copy of both the summons and the pleading be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, restricted delivery; and (2) that there be evidence of the delivery or by the envelope returned marked, “Refused.” If either of the requirements are not met, you have to reissue process.

There must be proof that both “the summons and the complaint” (that’s the language of the rule, which I interpret to mean the summons and the pleading initiating the instant action) were included in the certified mailing. You can do this yourself by affidavit or certficate of service in the court file, or you can ask the clerk to do it with a notation on the docket, as in MRCP 4(c)(4)(C). Your notice that the petition or other pleading was sent, not mentioning the summons, is inadequate process. Likewise, merely mailing the summons alone is not enough.

It is not adequate for the process to be issued and addressed to “John Smith,” and for the return receipt to be signed by “J.W. Smith” or “Kathy Smith for John Smith,” or “Phyllis Smith, mother of John Smith,” or any other person. Also, the record must show that the signature on the receipt is actually that of the party to be served. In a recent case in my court, the signature on the receipt unquestionably did not even remotely resemble the defendant’s signature on the original property settlement agreement or on a return mail receipt for an earlier proceeding.

And, of course, the process must be timely served. For a Rule 81 summons, the return receipt must show deliver within the requisite time.

Also, the rule specifies that it applies to “a person outside this state.” In my opinion, it does not apply to natural persons located in Mississippi. There is a first-class-mail process provision for persons in Mississippi at MRCP 4(c)(3), and it does allow at its subsection (B) for service “in any other manner permitted by this rule,” if the required acknowledgment of mailing is not returned. But Rule 4(c)(5) specifically limits itself to “a person outside this state …”

The rules for serving an out-of-state corporate entity or an out-of-state government entity are spelled out separately in MRCP 4(d)(4) and (8), respectively.

When I practiced, I almost never used certfied mail process (or first class mail either, for that matter). In my experience, postal employees don’t take any care to make sure that the deliveree is actually the addressee, or that the delivery is truly “restricted” within the meaning of the term, or that any of your needs are met. They are more concerned with getting that letter out of their hands, with a signature on the green card that they can hand off to somebody else. I usually persuaded my clients to go to the extra expense of retaining the services of a process server to save time and frustration. But I recognize that in these times of economic strain your clients appreciate anything you can do to save them some money.

If you’re going to use certified mail process, take the time and pay the attention to do it right. Read the rules. Process rules are to be strictly construed. Sloppy handling will result in unnecessary, frustrating delay for your client and further expense to get that summons served.

JUST AND PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES

November 29, 2012 § Leave a comment

A chancellor has the power to impose conditions that may seem “just and proper under the circumstances,” regardless whether any party demanded such relief. Miss. State Highway Commission v. Spencer, 233 Miss. 155, 101 So.2d 499, 504-05 (1958).

The source of this power is apparent in several of the maxims of equity:

Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy.
Equity delights to do complete justice and not by halves.
Equity acts specifically and not by way of compensation.

The proper focus of a chancery court remedy, then, should be to fix the underlying problem, completely and not in part.

In three recent COA cases, the court upheld chancellors’ rulings where the trial judge went beyond the pleadings to fashion a remedy designed to fix the underlying problem.

In Goolsby v. Crane, decided October 23, 2012, and discussed in a previous post, the parties were before the court on the mother’s petition to modify to increase child support, and the father’s counterclaim for custody. After hearing all of the testimony, particularly that of the children, the chancellor found that the then-existing visitation schedule was not working, and he modified the visitation schedule. No one had asked for that particular relief, but the COA affirmed on the basis that there was substantial evidence to support the judge’s action.

The case of Finch v. Finch, handed down October 2, 2012, which was the subject of a previous post here, arose from post-divorce contempt and modification procedures. The ex-husband pled that the ex-wife’s alimony should be terminated because she had misled him about joint debts when he agreed to a property settlement agreement, and he now found himself saddled with considerable debt. The chancellor took it a step further and found that the ex-wife had committed a fraud on the court, justifying termination of her alimony. The ex-wife appealed, copmplaining that the ex-husband had failed properly to plead fraud (see Rogers v. Rogers, decided August 1, 2012, and posted about here). The COA affirmed, finding that there was a substantial basis to support the chancellor’s decision, and pointing out anyway that the mention of the words “falsely represented” in the ex-husband’s petition was enough notice that the issue was in play. The court also pointed out that the chancellor has the power under MRCP 60(b) on her own motion to address fraud.

In Scott v. Scott, decided October 30, 2012, the parties had entered into a 1997 property settlement agreement that gave the ex-wife all of the ex-husband’s Tier II Railroad Retirement Benefits “through the date of the divorce.” A separate order was drafted for submission to the retirment agency in the form required by that agency, but the order left out the phrase “through the date of the divorce.” Predictably, when the husband applied for his benefits, he learned to his chagrin that the agency, relying on the order, had awarded the wife 100% of the Tier II without limitation. The ex-husband asked the chancellor to modify to correct the situation, and the ex-wife denied that the property division could be modified. The chancellor brushed aside both positions and invoked MRCP 60(a) to correct the clear discrepancy between the express terms of the parties’ agreement and the order. The COA affirmed.

The common thread in each of these cases is that the trial judge did what she or he deemed “just and proper under the circumstances” to fix the underlying problem. It’s a matter of substance over form.

CUSTODY WHEN THERE IS NO DIVORCE

November 27, 2012 § Leave a comment

In the COA case of Jones v. Jones, decided November 13, 2012, Carrie Jones filed for divorce against her husband, Donald, who in turn filed a counterclaim for divorce against her. The parties agreed to present the case in a bifurcated fashion, first presenting proof of grounds for divorce and letting the court adjudicate the divorce before proceeding to other issues.

Carrie presented her evidence, at the conclusion of which Donald moved for dismissal under MRCP 41(b). The chancellor ruled that Carrie had not met her burden of proof, and dismissed her complaint. Donald then dismissed his counterclaim. When Carrie asked to go forward on the remaining isssues of child custody and support, the chancellor refused on the basis that her complaint was dismissed, and there was nothing further to adjudicate.

Carrie appealed, raising several issues (she did not contest the denial of the divorce).

First, she claimed that the chancellor had a constitutional duty to protect the child, and that the court should have adjudicated custody even though the divorce complaint was dismissed. Judge Fair, writing for the majority, agreed that the chancery court has a duty to protect children, but disagreed that the duty extended to adjudicating custody in a situation such as this. He wrote:

This [constitutional] responsibility does not impose upon chancellors an affirmative duty to adjudicate custody for every dismissed divorce complaint.

¶6. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that a chancellor may provide for the custody of children after dismissing a complaint for divorce. See Waller v. Waller, 754 So. 2d 1181, 1183 (¶12) (Miss. 2000). “The court, however, is not required to make a decision regarding custody where it dismisses the petition for divorce.” Id. (citations omitted).

¶7. In domestic-relations matters, chancellors enjoy considerable discretion and are trusted to evaluate the specific facts of each case. See Harrell v. Harrell, 231 So. 2d 793, 797 (Miss. 1970). Here, the limited record contains no indication that either parent would be unfit or unsuitable for custody. We cannot say the chancellor abused his discretion by declining to adjudicate custody.

Second, she argued that the court should have dismissed only the divorce complaint and left standing her claim for custody. This, too, the court rejected:

¶10. Carrie characterizes her claims for custody and child support as independent actions cognizable under section 93-11-65 of the Mississippi Code Annotated (Supp. 2012). But our case law contradicts this interpretation. In Slaughter v. Slaughter, 869 So. 2d 386, 397 (¶33) (Miss. 2004), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a custody matter may not proceed under section 93-11-65 when a divorce is pending. Therefore, Carrie’s claims for custody and child support cannot properly be understood as independent issues. Mississippi Code Annotated section “93-5-23 provides for the child’s care and custody in a divorce situation and 93-11-65 . . . is an alternative[.]” Slaughter, 869 So. 2d at 396 (¶33).

[The opinion goes on to distinguish the holding in the modification case, Anderson v. Anderson, 961 So. 2d 55, 59-60 (¶¶8-10) (Miss. 2007)].

How do you avoid a result like Jones? It seems to me you could plead in counts, Count I being the claim for divorce, equitable distribution, a 93-5-24 claim for custody, etc., and Count II being the 93-11-65 child custody and support claim. By pleading in counts you are in my opinion filing what amounts to severable law suits. Under Slaughter, then, you would be barred from proceeding on Count II as long as Count I is pending. But if Count I is dismissed, you still have Count II to fall back on, and it would be viable at that point because the 93-5-24 claim is dismissed.

There is a caveat, however. The venue requirements for divorce and 93-11-65 are not identical. You may have venue for the divorce, but not for 93-11-65.

I’m not saying categorically that this is the answer to the problem because I have not researched the question beyond Jones and Slaughter. The tactic I am suggesting, however, was not employed in either of those cases, as far as I can tell from reading the opinions. Thus, my solution gives you an arguable basis to go forward on custody if you are stymied on grounds for divorce.

ID DIVORCES IN DISTRICT 12

October 24, 2012 § Leave a comment

‘Way back in June, 2010, I posted the requirements in this district to present an irreconcilable differences divorce.

As I explained back then …

The chancery judge in an irreconcilable differences (ID) divorce is required by law to make a determination about the sufficiency of the provision for support of the minor children. Different chancellors approach the task in different ways. Some judges require a complete Rule 8.05 financial statement from each party. Some judges take the word of the attorney or litigants.

In District 12, we do not require an 8.05, but we do require that the property settlement agreement (PSA) must include certain information about the income and deductions of the paying parent. Here are our requirements:

The property settlement agreement must include information showing gross income and deductions for taxes, Medicare and social security for year to date for the paying party, in the form of a pay stub attached to the agreement or a recitation of the actual figures, including monthly and year-to-date figures, in the body of the agreement; or, in the alternative, a statement satisfactory to the court as to why such information is not available. If the pay stub is attached, the agreement itself must include a provision that both parties have seen and are satisfied with the accuracy of the document. If the required information is not included, the agreement will not be approved.

We also have a requirement that the 8.06 disclosures either be in the PSA itself, or that the parties file it with the clerk simultaneously with entry of the divorce judgment. This policy is a recognition of the fact that 99.9% of parties do not file their 8.06 informantion as required in the rules. UCCR 8.06 mandates that the current names, addresses and telephone numbers of both parents must be disclosed and filed in the court file.

We also require at least one of the parties to appear and testify. The witness establishes the jurisdictional facts and answers two questions about the PSA: is it the entire agreement, so that there are no side agreements or unwritten deals; and does it settle all of the marital issues between the parties? If the other party is unrepresented, it would be a good idea to have that party appear also to be available to answer any questions or to make any changes in the PSA that are directed by the court.

WINNING TACTICS FOR CHILD SUPPORT MODIFICATION

October 23, 2012 § 3 Comments

There is more to proving your case for an increase in child support than simply proving that the payer’s income has increased.

In the case of Adams v. Adams, 467 So. 2d 211, 215 (Miss. 1985), the MSSC laid out 10 factors that the trial court must consider in determining whether an increase is warranted. You have to put proof into the record to support as many factors as apply in your case. The factors are:

Increased needs caused by advanced age and maturity of the children;
Increase in expenses;
Inflation factor;
The relative financial condition and earning capacity of the parties;
The physical and psychological health and special medical needs of the child;
The health and special medical needs of the parents, both physical and psychological;
The necessary living expenses of the paying party;
The estimated amount of income taxes that the respective parties must pay on their incomes;
The free use of residence, furnishings, and automobiles; and
Any other factors and circumstances that bear on the support as shown by the evidence. (citing Brabham v. Brabham, 226 Miss. 165, 176, 84 So. 2d 147, 153 (1955).

Expenses of private school are a legitimate factor to consider in modification proceedings, although the expenses are inadequate standing alone. Southerland v. Southerland, 816 So. 2d 1004, 1007 (¶13) (Miss. 2002).

Educational expenses may be properly considered with the increased needs of older children and their increased extracurricular activities in order to justify an increase in child support. Havens v. Brooks, 728 So. 2d 580, 583 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998).

Remember that the keystone consideration for modification is a change in expenses of the child. You must put on proof that establishes what the expenses were at the time of the judgment you are seeking to modify, as well as proof of the expenses at the time of trial. Most importantly: It is not adequate to prove only that the income of the paying parent has increased.

So here are a few tactics that may help:

Alter your 8.05 to add a column on both the income page and on the expenses pages for the date of the divorce or judgment you are seeking to modify. For example, if you are seeking to modify a judgment entered May 5, 2001, add a column headed “MAY 5, 2001.” Then get your client to itemize her income from back then, as well as the expenses. The expenses should show an increase; if they don’t, you have a probably fatal flaw in your case. It is not necessary that your client have documentation to support her figures, although that would help bolster her credibility. Your client can base her figures on her recollection, or, if she has an 8.05 from 2001, use that document. By juxtaposing the figures for the earlier date with current figures, you are making it easy for the judge to view how the expenses have increased. Also, you are providing proof in specifics, and not generally.
See if you can get the other side to admit the consumer price indexes for the relevant periods. You can use RFA’s or get the attorney on the other side to stipulate, thus establishing “the inflation factor” of Adams.
If you can’t prove the inflation factor any other way, ask your client based on her experience whether prices in general for goods and services for the children have gone up or down during the relevant period. At least you will give the judge something to sink her teeth into on the inflation point.
Do enough discovery to obtain copies of tax returns for the payer both at the time of the prior judgment and currently.
Be sure to discount expenses your client agreed to share. For instance, if your client agreed to pay one-half of the private school tuition, include only her one-half in the children’s expenses.
Expenses have to be reasonable. Don’t expect the judge to find a substantial increase in expenses based on activities that are out of proportion to the parties’ accustomed standard of living or are not necessary. A middle-income case in which the child has taken up a hobby of raising show ponies that cost thousand of dollars and involve expensive travel to shows around the country and abroad will likely receive negative attention, while a case in which the child has struggled in school and needs the added expense of tutoring and ADD medication would likely receive positive attention.

Plan your modification case for success. Remember that you can use summaries and compilations to present your evidence. And the clearer and better your 8.05’s are, the greater you chances of success.

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO TRIGGER RELIEF FROM FRAUD ON THE COURT?

October 10, 2012 § 4 Comments

Basically, all you have to do is bring it to the court’s attention, and the judge can do the rest. That’s what the COA decision in Finch v. Finch, handed down October 2, 2012, says.

But before we talk about Finch, let me remind you of the MSSC decision in Trim v. Trim, which held that “the intentional filing of a substantially false Rule 8.05 statement is misconduct that rises above mere nondisclosure of material facts to an adverse party,” and constitutes fraud upon the court. There is no time limit to when that issue can be raised. So to allow your client to submit a false 8.05 is to allow the judgment always and forever to be vulnerable to possibly fatal attack, as was the case in Trim.

Only two months ago the COA held in Rogers v. Rogers that if you are going to claim fraud on the court, you will have to prove all of the classic elements of fraud, or you will fall short.

Now we have Finch, further defining the scope of fraud on the court. In Finch, Rosemary and Stewart, no longer love birds, got an irreconcilable differences divorce in which the special chancellor awarded Rosemary alimony based on financial proof submitted by the parties, including Rosemary’s claim that she was paying certain marital debts that she claimed she had been paying throughout the marriage.

The special chancellor’s appointment expired, and a newly-elected chancellor took the bench and assumed responsibility for the case.

In post-divorce litigation, Stewart asked the court to find Rosemary in contempt and to modify the alimony to take into consideration that Rosemary had “falsely represented” to the court that she had been paying the marital bills. He claimed and proved that she had failed to pay an American Express account, forcing Stewart to borrow some $38,000 to pay it. Also, she had not disclosed other family debt in the divorce that affected Stewart.

The chancellor found that Rosemary’s actions were a fraud on the court, and she decided that the fraud permitted her to reduce the alimony under MRCP 60(b). Stewart had not filed a 60(b) motion, had not specifically requested any 60(b) relief, and did not specifically plead or charge fraud. Rosemary appealed, claiming that it was error for the chancellor to grant 60(b) relief sua sponte, which had the effect of setting aside and doing away with issues to which the parties had agreed and settled before the original trial.

Judge Ishee’s opinion for the court states:

¶18. While Stewart did not file a Rule 60(b) motion, he did allege fraud in the petition for contempt and modification. Furthermore, “[t]he chancery court is vested with broad equitable powers with which it is able to decide if the original order was entered by mistake, fraud of a party, or for another reason justifying relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b) and may do so upon its own motion.” Tirouda v. State, 919 So. 2d 211, 214 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Edwards v. Roberts, 771 So. 2d 378, 386 (¶28) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000)).

Rule 60(b) even states: “This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.” Accordingly, the chancery court did not err by finding fraud upon the court and altering the final divorce decree without Stewart filing a Rule 60(b) motion.

Rosemary also tried to claim that the fraud, if any, was on Stewart and not on the court, which argument the COA rejected, based on Trim. She argued in addition that there was inadequate proof in the record of the elements of fraud, which the COA likewise rejected, based on the proof in the record and the findings of the chancellor.

To return to my initial point: all that was necessary in this case was to give the chancellor a suggestion that there may have been a fraud on the court, and she picked it up and ran with it. The chancellor has broad, equitable power when it comes to relief under MRCP 60(b), which the court can exercise on its own motion. In this particular case the problem was fraud, but 60(b) vests the court with the same equitable powers to address mistake, “or any other reason justifying relief from judgment …”

REASONABLENESS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES IN CONTEMPT

September 17, 2012 § 4 Comments

In the COA case of Bowen v. Bowen, decided September 11, 2012, the court reversed and remanded the chancellor’s award of $10,000 fees in a case where the judge found the defendant in contempt. It was not the award of fees that the COA questioned, but rather the amount and reasonableness.

As we have mentioned here before, inability to pay is not a threshhold issue to an award of attorney’s fees based on contempt. In a contempt case, attorney’s fees may be awarded where a party’s intentional conduct causes the opposing party to spend time and money needlessly.

Judge Ishee’s opinion in Bowen points out that the determination whether a fee is reasonable depends on consideration of Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(a) and the McKee factors. He said:

” … even in contempt actions, “[t]he reasonableness of attorney’s fees [is] controlled by the applicable [Rule] 1.5 factors and the McKee factors.” …

¶25. When awarding Patricia attorney’s fees, the chancery court stated:

‘Although [John] has attempted to purge himself of his contempt by bringing the child support and medical insurance payments current, . . . the [c]ourt is going to assess [John] with attorney’s fees incurred by [Patricia]. If not for [John’s] repeated, willful refusal to abide by the orders of this court, [Patricia] would not have incurred the attorney’s fees, which the court finds to be reasonable and [to] meet all of the McKee factors.

There is no indication the chancery court adequately considered the McKee factors when assessing the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees. There was no consideration regarding the parties financial abilities, the novelty and difficulty of the question at issue, or the assessment of the charges.

¶26. The case at hand appears to be a routine contempt action. While large awards for attorney’s fees may still be awarded in contempt actions, they are not typical for a routine contempt action. … Here, an award of $10,000 appears excessive for a routine contempt action in which only $135 in child support remains unpaid. Furthermore, upon a review of the fees incurred, some charges relate to matters outside of the contempt action, such as modification of child support. Because the attorney’s fees were awarded based on John’s ‘repeated, willful refusal to abide by the orders of [the chancery court],’ fees not related to the contempt action should not have been included in the award amount awarded.”

I’ve made the point here before that …

Notwithstanding the more relaxed standard for contempt and misconduct cases, I encourage you to put on proof of the McKee factors and documentation of your time in the case, so that it is in the record if you need it. A post on what you need to prove attorneys fees is here.

Most attorneys in my opinion do not devote much attention or care to making a record on attorney’s fees. That’s ironic, because you would think it would be a subject of sublime importance to the trial attorney.

Here’s a post about how to prove attorney’s fees in a divorce case. It’s more elaborate than the minimum required in a contempt, but it will give you an idea of what is involved in making a record that won’t spring a fatal leak.

DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS THAT WASTE EVERYONE’S TIME

September 12, 2012 § Leave a comment

Most lawyers propound an interrogatory or two that seek the substance of the other side’s case and what witnesses there are. The query looks something like this:

“State each and every fact, circumstance and event upon which you base the claim in Paragraph 4 of your Complaint for Divorce that the dfendant has been guilty of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, stating for each the date, time and place of occurrence and each witness thereto.”

Some lawyers, I guess to buy more time, file a response that looks like this:

“Objection. Overbroad and unduly burdensome.”

“Objection: accord and satisfaction; antenuptial knowledge; arbitration and award; assumption of risk, condonation, connivance, contributory negligence, consent, discharge and bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, failure to mitigate damages, fraud, illegality, insufficient process, insufficient service of process, injury by fellow servant, laches, lack of capacity to commit the offense, license, payment, pre-existing injuries or damages, provocation, reconciliation, recrimination, reformation, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.”

Or, worse:

“Objection.”

Too often these inadequate and lazy objections wind up on a busy judge’s desk, and the judge is called upon to order the lawyer to do what he or she should have done in the first place.

MRCP 33(b)(4) requires that each objection be stated with specificity. In Ford Motor Co. v. Tennin, 960 So.2d 379, 393 (Miss. 2007), the MSSC said that “General objections applicable to each and every interrogatory … are clearly outside the bounds of this rule.”

Not only that, but the rule specifically says that an objection does not necessarily relieve you of the duty to respond. It says that if the request is only partially objectionable, you must state the extent to which it is objectionable and the reason for the partial objection, and then you must proceed to respond to the unobjectionable part.

If you take the position in good faith that you should object to going back through thirty years’ worth of events, then state your objection and state that you are providing the requested information for, say, the past five years because it is the most relevant period, and it is unduly burdensome to go back any further. The specific language of Rule 33(b)(4) requires exectly that.

If you object that your client cannot remember every minute detail, but that you are providing as best you can the dates and identification of the events, say that. Don’t just make a blanket objection.

If you think it’s unreasonable to provide 360 bank statements (that’s 30 years’ worth) because it’s too burdensome, say so, and offer to provide what you think is a reasonable number. That is what the rule contemplates.

So what do you do if you’re confronted with those kinds of objections? Well, you don’t want to get to trial and face the argument that the other side should be able to proceed unfettered because you never asked the court to rule on the objections. I would file a motion to compel and ask the judge to rule on them and set reasonable parameters (I would also make more reasonable requests in the first place, but that’s another story).

I wonder whether all those boilerplate objections that have no conceivable application in chancery are sanctionable. It would be interesting to hear the argument on that.

MRCP 81 NOTCHES A CURIOUS KILL

September 6, 2012 § 3 Comments

The latest case to fall prey to the predatory MRCP 81 is Pearson v. Browning, decided September 4, 2012, by the COA. We last looked at the vicissitudes of the rule in a post about Brown, et al v. Tate.

The case that brought Pearson v. Browning to the COA began when Dennis Pearson filed a pro se pleading against his ex-wife, Patricia Browning, seeking modification and contempt. Although the procedural history is not entirely clear, it appears that Patricia filed a counterclaim-like pleading charging Dennis with contempt. Both matters came up for hearing on February 2, 2009, when dennis failed to appear, and the chancellor dismissed his claims. The judge ordered that Patricia’s claims be reset for hearing for August 6, 2009. On or about June 10, 2012, however, the court administrator gave notice that the date was again reset, for November 3, 2010. There is no court order setting the November date.

Patricia’s attorney sent Dennis a letter, dated October 15, 2010, notifying him of the November 3, 2010, trial date. Dennis testified that he did not receive it until November 1, 2010, and he filed a letter complaining of the short notice.

On November 3, 2010, Dennis appeared personally pro se and protested the lack of time to prepare his defense and lack of notice of what he was being charged with. He moved for a continuance. The judge denied his motion and pressed on to hearing. On November 18, 2010, the chancellor entered a judgment against Dennis in favor of Patricia in the sum of $53,528.22.

The COA reversed. Judge Griffis’s opinion spells out the basic law of MRCP 81:

¶7. In this case, jurisdiction is governed by Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 81(d)(2), because it includes the “modification or enforcement of custody, support, and alimony judgments” and “contempt.”

¶8. A Rule 81 summons is necessary to begin dormant domestic actions listed in Rule 81(d). A Rule 81 summons is not a Rule 4 summons. See M.R.C.P. 4. A Rule 81 summons gives notice to the defendant of the date, time, and place to appear. It does not require a response. A Rule 4 summons requires a written response in thirty days. A Rule 4 summons and a Rule 5 notice have no effect with Rule 81 matters. Sanghi [v. Sanghi], 759 So. 2d at 1253 (¶¶11, 14) (citing Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc., 661 So. 2d 188, 194 (Miss. 1995); Powell v. Powell, 644 So. 2d 269, 273-74 (Miss. 1994)); see M.R.C.P. 5.

¶9. In a matter that requires a Rule 81 summons and does not use a Rule 81 summons, the resulting judgment is void because it is made without jurisdiction over the parties. See Bryant, Inc. v. Walters, 493 So. 2d 933, 938 (Miss. 1986); Duvall v. Duvall, 224 Miss. 546, 555, 80 So. 2d 752, 755 (1955); Roberts v. Roberts, 866 So. 2d 474, 476-77 (¶¶7-8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). If an action under Rule 81(d)(1) or (2) “is not heard on the day set for hearing, it may by order signed on that day be continued to a later day for hearing without additional summons on the defendant or respondent.” M.R.C.P. 81(d)(5). For no additional Rule 81 summons to be required, the order that continues the trial date must be signed on or before the original trial date.

¶10. In this appeal, Pearson argues that Browning failed to comply with Rule 81(d)(5). Specifically, Pearson argues that jurisdiction lapsed because a court administrator’s notice changed the trial date of January 22, 2008 to January 23, 2008; an order dated October 24, 2008 changed the trial date of September 18, 2008 to February 2, 2009; a court administrator’s notice dated June 11, 2010 changed the trial date of August 6, 2009 to November 3, 2010; and Pearson received a letter on November 1, 2010 about the November 3, 2010 trial.

¶11. Our review is limited to events that occurred after February 2, 2009. Because Pearson was the plaintiff prior to February 2, 2009, he cannot properly raise a jurisdictional issue before that date. By the fact that a plaintiff brought his claim, he consents to personal jurisdiction in that court. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 775, 779 (1984).

¶12. Rule 81(d)(5) governs the need for additional summons on the defendant. Before February 2, 2009, Pearson simply was not entitled to a Rule 81 summons because he was the plaintiff.

¶13. On February 2, 2009, the chancery court dismissed all of Pearson’s claims with prejudice. The only claims left before the court were Browning’s contempt claims against Pearson. Hence, after February 2, 2009, Pearson was no longer the plaintiff.

¶14. Whether an additional Rule 81 summons was required and, thus, whether the chancery court had jurisdiction over Pearson on November 3, 2010, depends on: (1) whether Browning’s “motion” was actually a petition for contempt; (2) whether the court administrator’s notice was sufficient to substitute for the lack of a Rule 81 summons; (3) whether Pearson’s case is similar to Bailey v. Fischer, 946 So. 2d 404 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006); and (4) whether Pearson made an appearance, thereby waiving the lack of a Rule 81 summons.

The COA concluded that Patricia’s “motion” was, in fact, a petition for contempt that required Rule 81 notice, that the court administrator’s notice was not adequate to suffice in lieu of a proper MRCP 81 summons, that Bailey is distinguishable, and that Dennis had not waived the jurisdictional issues by making a voluntary appearance. The court reversed the chancery court judgment for lack of jurisdiction.

The four bases listed above for determination of the Rule 81 issue deserve further attention in one or more future posts and will not be addressed further here.

A few observations based on the foregoing:

I call this case curious because, once Dennis had been properly served with the counterclaim, in most districts that I am aware of, he was only entitled from that point to Rule 5 notice. This case seems to say either that a counterclaim requires a Rule 81 process, or that one must be issued if the original plaintiff’s pleading is dismissed. I have never seen this practice in my 29 years’ experience under the MRCP. I admit that I have had trouble understanding the exact procedural chronology of this case, so the problem may be mine. But if my understanding is correct, this case is a major change in Rule 81 practice that you need to study very carefully.
Once again, if the matter that is the subject of your Rule 81 summons will not be heard on the day specified in the summons, you must have the court enter an order on or before (caveat … as to before, see below) the day noticed for hearing continuing the case to a specific date and time in the future.
Although the COA said that the case must be continued ” … on or before …” the date set in the summons, in my opinion only an agreed order of continuance dated before the summons date would be effective. If you unilaterally reset the case by order before the date set in the original summons, you are depriving the defendant of notice and the opportunity to defend.
As long as Dennis was in the status of a petitioner (plaintiff) who had invoked the court’s jurisdiction, he was entitled only to MRCP 5 notice; after he lost his petitioner status, he became entitled to the protection of Rule 81 notice.

As a practice matter, if you were Patricia’s lawyer, you could have avoided most of the above problems had you seen to it yourself that proper continuance orders and notices to the opposing side were presented to the judge and entered in a timely fashion. It’s your case, after all, and judges and court administrators have lots on their respective plates. As I’ve said before, judges and court personnel do their best, but the bottom line is that they are not responsible for the proper handling of your case; you are.

Where Am I?