Rules | The Better Chancery Practice Blog

EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY: SOME BASICS

September 19, 2011 § 5 Comments

Experts often testify in chancery. They address child custody, business valuations, property appraisals, surveys, tax issues, handwriting, competency, medical and health matters, and many other subjects almost too varied to imagine. MRE 702 allows you to call a qualified witness who has “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” that will assist the chancellor in understanding the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.

The catch is that the witness must be (a) qualified, and (b) have scientific, technical or specialized knowledge that will assist the court in adjudicating the case. It’s up to you to make a record that your witness meets the criteria of the rule.

You won’t get off the starting line, though, if you haven’t done your pre-trial work vis a vis your expert. Remember that if you are asked in discovery to identify your expert(s), you must do so not less than 60 days in advance of trial, per UCCR 1.10, or run the extremely likely risk that you will be denied the opportunity to call that witness as an expert. Merely including the name of an expert in a general witness list is not enough to meet the requirement of the rule. And if you are asked to provide the expert information required in MRCP 26(b)(4), you must timely provide it — all of it, in a responsive manner — or you may be left expert-less in that trial.

Calling an expert as a witness at trial is a two-phase process:

First, you must qualify the expert and tender the witness as an expert, at which point the other side will be given the opportunity to voir dire the witness as to qualifications to testify as an expert. The court will then hear any objections to the qualifications. If the court rules that the witness does have expert qualifications, you move to the next phase.

Second you take the expert testimony itself. Before you get into the substance of that testimony, though, you must establish that the expert’s opinions will be reliable, using the factors set out in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 US 579 (1993).

Here is the process, step by step:

Identify the witness.
Establish the witness’s knowledge, skill, experience, training and/or education that qualifies her as an expert.
Tender the witness as an expert.
Address any objections to qualifications.
Have the witness testify about the facts and data upon which the opinion will be based. MRE 702(1) requires that the opinion must be based on “sufficient facts or data.”
Have the witness establish by testimony the principles and methods she used in arriving at her opinion, and she must establish their reliability.
Have the witness testify how she applied those principles and methods in this particular case, and why the method she used does produce reliable results in her field.
Develop the expert opinion.

Some factors you might want to consider in developing whether the expert applied the principles and methods of his field reliably to the facts in your case:

Have the principles and methods used been tested, or can they?
Have the principles and methods been subject to professional critique, peer review, and publication?
What is the known error rate for the principles and methods, and what are the means to control or reduce the error rate? What measures were taken to control the error rate in this case?
What is the extent to which the principles and methods have been accepted in the field?
Is the opinion based on research or study that the expert did independent of the litigation?
Has the expert adequately addressed and accounted for alternative or contradictory explations? How did the expert rule them out?
Did the expert employ the same standards and techniques in reaching the opinion in this case that he does in the normal course of his professional work?
Is there a discrepancy between the data and the conclusions reached by the expert? How does the expert explain the discrepancy and rule out other conclusions?
How does the expert’s opinion tie in to the facts in this particular case?

Obviously the way you develop your expert’s testimony will depend both what is at issue in the case and the expert’s field of expertise. A child psychologist in a custody case will require a different approach than, for example, a handwriting expert in a will contest.

With respect to qualifications, it’s a good idea always to get the expert’s CV (curriculum vitae) and offer it into evidence. Once it gets into evidence, it may prompt counsel opposite into stipulating that it does, in fact, state the witness’s proposed qualifications, which may eliminate lengthy testimony. With no jury to impress, there’s no need to put on a show about the witness’s impressive credentials.

The court always has the discretion whether to allow an expert’s testimony at all. If the court finds that the subject matter of the opinion is not sufficiently scientific, technical or otherwise specialized, the court can rule that an expert need not be called. For example, if the judge or any other lay person can determine that the ground became wet after a rain, it is not necessary to have expert testimony on the point. Likewise, an expert on the law is unnecessary and superfluous because the trial judge is the expert on the law of the case (at least until the COA reviews it).

AN OBJECTIONABLE OBJECTION

September 14, 2011 § 4 Comments

One of the most baffling objections is “Object to the form of the question.” It’s baffling because it doesn’t tell the judge what the real problem is.

It’s actually a lazy objection because it is several objections in one. Problems with the form of the question arise from nine distinct sources, each of which is a separate objection in its own right.

These are the real objections to the form of the question:

Leading. MRE 611(c) says that “Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be used to develop his testimony.” Which means that the judge may grant some leeway in order to ensure that testimony is developed. Leading is, of course, permitted on cross examination, for hostile or adverse witnesses, and for preliminary matters.
Compound question. You can ask only one question at a time. Often the witness answers only one of multiple questions, not always making it clear which one she is answering.
Argumentative and Harrassing. This is really two different things. A question is argumentative when it is merely a comment on the evidence, or a legal argument, or an attempt to get the witness to adjudge his own credibility. A question is harassing when the probative weight of the information sought is outweighed by the embarassment to the witness or its outrageous nature. UCCR 1.01 states that “The counsel, parties, and witnesses must be respectful to the court and to each other,” and “Bickering or wrangling between counsel or between counsel and witness will not be tolerated.”
Asked and answered. You enjoyed the answer so much the first time that you just can’t resist doing it again.
Assumes facts not in evidence. You have broad scope within the bounds of relevance to develop new facts, but not by framing your questions in such a way that they take as true facts that have not been established. In chancery, with no jury, this is a touch-and-feel objection that the judge may overrule and then disregard the answer.
Ambiguous and confusing. A question is ambiguous when it is susceptible to more than one interpretation. A question is confusing when it is phrased in such a way that it can be misunderstood.
Misleading. Misstatement of the witness’s or another witness’s prior testimony.
Narrative. The question calls for a recitation of the whole story, which may or may not include objectionable material.
Repetitious. You already made that point. Move on to something else.

Unless you’re objecting just to hear yourself talk, you want your objections to accomplish something for the benefit of your client. General objections like “Object to the form of the question” are an objectionable waste of time. Your chances of getting your objection sustained go up when you make a specific objection.

AUTOMATIC MODIFICATION OF CHILD CUSTODY

August 23, 2011 § 2 Comments

You are representing your client in an irreconcilable differences divorce, and the long-awaited PSA has arrived in the mail from counsel opposite. Here are the provisions dealing with custody:

(g) So as to insure a fit and proper environment for the rearing of the minor children, the parties agree that in the event there is a scintilla of evidence of unmarried sexual activity by wife where the minor children are residing or in the vicinity of the minor children, wife shall immediately forfeit and be divested of all custody rights with respect to the minor children, custody of the minor children thereupon automatically vesting in husband, subject only the right of wife to have reasonable visitation with the minor children at reasonable times and places.

(h) In furtherance of the concept of a “home base” hereinabove discussed, the parties agree that the children shall reside in the Columbus, Mississippi area. Wife agrees to give husband sixty (60) days advance written notice of any intended relocation. Unless both parties agree that the children may be removed from the Columbus, Mississippi area to this new location, wife shall be divested of custody of the minor children upon such relocation and custody shall thereupon be vested in husband subject to further orders of the Court. Wife shall have the right to reasonable visitation with the minor children at all reasonable times and places during this period until the matter is finally determined by the Court.

(i) During the portion of the year in which the children reside with wife, wife agrees to give husband advance notice of any trips she plans out of the town of Columbus, Mississippi and further agrees to limit any out of Columbus, Mississippi trips to not more than three nights and to provide husband with information regarding her destination and location so as to afford him a basis to communicate with her if necessary. Furthermore, during such out of town trips, husband, at his option, shall have the right to have custody of the minor children.

It looks pretty much like what your client has told you was her agreement. She and her soon-to-be ex want the children to have some stability, and she wants this divorce over so she can get on with her life. If that’s what her husband wants, she is willing to agree to it just to get this over with.

Subparagraph (g) would effect an immediate change in custody in the event that your client engaged in unmarried sexual activity “where the children are residing” or in their vicinity, and the burden of proof would be a “scintilla of evidence,” a humble standard by any measure.

Subparagraph (h) would create an automatic modification of custody if your client relocates from the Columbus, Mississippi, area.

Subparagraph (i) essentially provides that unless the father gives your client permission to take the children out of town for longer than tree nights, she must give him custody for the duration of such trips.

What is your advice to her?

Check out the case of McManus v. Howard, 569 So.2d 1213 (Miss. 1990). There, the parties had agreed to the very terms cited above, which were approved by the chancellor. Later, the mother sought either a modification or an MRCP 57 declaratory judgment that the agreement was unenforceable as to subparagraphs (h) and (i). It appears that neither party injected subparagraph (g) into the litigation, but one can speculate that it was a tactical decision by counsel to avoid an appearance of wanting to promote or condone inappropriate activity. The MSSC did not explain why it referenced the provision in its opinion.

The chancellor denied modification for the reason that the material change-adverse effect-best interest test had not been met. He denied declaratory judgment on the ground that the parties had contracted for the custodial arrangement, and their contractual agreement should be enforced.

In the MSSC opinion, Justice Blass wrote (at page 1216):

“Being given jurisdiction by Miss.Code Ann. 93-5-24(6) (Supp.1990) and the children being wards of the state, Tighe v. Moore, 246 Miss. 649, 666, 151 So.2d 910, 917 (1963) and there being an ample body of the case law for the guidance of the court, Arnold v. Conwill, 562 So.2d 97, 99 (Miss.1990); Rutledge v. Rutledge, 487 So.2d 218, 219 (Miss.1986), the court simply cannot surrender or subordinate its jurisdiction and authority as to the circumstances and conditions which will cause a change in custody. We hold such an Agreement to be void and contrary to public policy. We have recently considered a similar problem and have reached the same conclusion. Bell v. Bell, No. 89-1108 (Miss. Oct. 3, 1990). Accordingly, we reverse, and grant judgment here for the declaratory judgment as to later sub-paragraphs 2(h) and 2(i). No other matters were submitted to this Court by the appeal.

The Bell case cited by the court found unenforceable an agreement between the parties under which the children were required to live in Tupelo until majority, and the relocation of the custodial parent would trigger an automatic modification of custody. Bell v. Bell, 572 So.2d 841, 845 (Miss. 1990).

The MSSC in McManus held that subparagraphs (h) and (i) above were unenforceable and reversed the chancellor’s ruling. There was no mention of subparagraph (g), because it was not a part of the underlying suit and was not raised on appeal, but the court’s rationale would apply to it as well, in my opinion.

It was my experience as a practitioner that parties occasionally wanted to include similar provisions in their PSA’s. Our chancellors would not approve an agreement that included the language, and I so advised my clients.

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO SATISFY THE DILIGENT INQUIRY REQUIREMENT OF MRCP 4?

August 16, 2011 § 2 Comments

We’ve talked here, here and here about MRCP 4 and its requirements for obtaining process by publication. The prerequisite to any process by publication is “diligent inquiry” to discover whether the party is to be found in Mississippi, and, if not, her post office address.

No process by publication can issue until there is an affidavit filed stating that diligent inquiry has been made. The one who claims to have made the inquiry is required to testify to the efforts involved. It is in the court’s discretion to determine whether the inquiry was indeed diligent.

So what exactly is diligent inquiry? To what extent is a party required to search out the whereabouts of the opposing party? I will confess to a certain degree of inconsistency on this issue on my part, due primarily to the fact that in Mississippi we do not have a template of authority or guidelines to go by. I do always question the witness about measures taken, and I am usually satisfied that he or she has done all that can be done.

Recently, it came to my attention that Florida has a form certificate of diligent inquiry that is required in all such cases. The affiant must check all of the categories of effort that apply. Here are the guts of the Florida certificate:

United States Post Office inquiry through Freedom of Information Act for current address or any relocations.
Last known employment of respondent, including name and address of employer. You should also ask for any addresses to which W-2 Forms were mailed, and, if a pension or profit-sharing plan exists, then for any addresses to which any pension or plan payment is and/or has been mailed.
Unions from which respondent may have worked or that governed particular trade or craft.
Regulatory agencies, including professional or occupational licensing.
Names and addresses of relatives and contacts with those relatives, and inquiry as to respondent’s last known address. You are to follow up any leads of any addresses where respondent may have moved. Relatives include, but are not limited to: parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, grandparents, great-grandparents, former in-laws, stepparents, stepchildren.
Information about the respondent’s possible death and, if dead, the date and location of the death.
Telephone listings in the last known locations of respondent’s residence.
Internet at http://www.switchboard.com or other internet people finder.
Law enforcement arrest and/or criminal records in the last known residential area of respondent.
Highway Patrol records in the state of respondent’s last known address.
Department of Motor Vehicle records in the state of respondent’s last known address.
Department of Corrections records in the state of respondent’s last known address.
Title IV-D (child support enforcement) agency records in the state of respondent’s last known address.
Hospitals in the last known area of respondent’s residence.
Utility companies, which include water, sewer, cable TV, and electric, in the last known area of respondent’s residence.
Letters to the Armed Forces of the U.S. and their response as to whether or not there is any information about respondent.

Some of these measures seem somewhat extravagant to me; a Freedom of Information Act request, for example, seems a bit much. Certain other listed measures would be futile due to privacy and HIPAA concerns, in my opinion.

The list, though, does have much to commend it in that it illustrates the extent of information available to find someone. In the era of internet, with Google and the like, the old “I asked his momma and she doesn’t know where he is” just doesn’t cut it anymore. The more extensive the search, the more different measures employed, the more likely it is that the court will find the effort to have been diligent.

I heard an uncontested divorce a while back in which the plaintiff had published process based on a claim that she did not know where the defendant was, and was not to be found in Mississippi. She testified about all the relatives she had talked to who claimed not to know where he was, either. In the course of her testimony, she let slip that the last she had known he was in prison in Texas. I interrupted and asked how long his prison term was, and she responded that he should still be there because he had been sentenced to something like 20 years. I pointed out to the attorney that of all people on the planet a prisoner should be among the easiest to locate, and I continued the hearing to a later date for that purpose. The attorney easily located the man on the internet, and she and her client returned to court a couple of months later and proceeded on personal process.

My suggestion is that you don’t file that diligent inquiry affidavit unless and until you are satisfied that your client has, indeed, made a bona fide effort to locate the other party. You may wind up doing some of the work yourself.

PROCESS FAI*L

August 15, 2011 § Leave a comment

What difference does it make whether the other party has the right form of process if he had actual notice?

Consider the case of Clark v. Clark, 43 So.3d 496 (Miss. App. 2010). The facts are pretty straightforward:

Aileen filed for divorce from her husband Willie. She filed and had issued a Rule 81 summons for a temporary hearing and another Rule 81 summons on her complaint for divorce. Willie did not appear for the temporary hearing, and the chancellor entered a temporary order favorable to Aileen. On the date set in the summons on the complaint, Willie was again called and did not appear. The chancellor entered a judgment of divorce on July 25, 2008, awarding Aileen a divorce, custody, child support, alimony, a vehicle and a name change.

On September 23, 2008, Willie filed a motion under MRCP 60(b) to set aside the judgment, which the chancellor refused. Willie appealed.

On appeal, Willie’s sole assignment of error was that since he was not served with a Rule 4 summons on the divorce, the court lacked jurisdiction.

The COA reversed, and here are the important points:

MRCP 4 “provides for the means of service of the original complaint and the form of the accompanying summons.” Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So.2d 1250, 1253(¶ 11) (Miss. App. 2000); see also Carlisle v. Carlisle, 11 So.3d 142, 144(¶ 9) (Miss. App. 2009). “The rules on service of process are to be strictly construed. If they have not been complied with, the court is without jurisdiction unless the defendant appears of his own volition.” Kolikas v. Kolikas, 821 So.2d 874, 878(¶ 16) (Miss. App. 2002).
Because Rule 81(d) embodies “special rules of procedure” that only apply to the matters listed in Rules 81(d)(1)-(2), and divorce is not one of these enumerated matters, service of the complaint for divorce fall outside the scope of Rule 81. See M.R.C.P. 81(d). Thus, the general rules govern, see Sanghi, 759 So.2d at 1256(¶ 27), and Rule 4 contains the proper procedure for serving the complaint.
In Rule 81 matters, a Rule 81 summons must be issued; otherwise, service is defective. See, e.g., Powell v. Powell, 644 So.2d 269, 274 (Miss. 1994); Saddler v. Saddler, 556 So.2d 344, 346 (Miss. 1990); Serton v. Serton, 819 So.2d 15, 21(¶ 24) (Miss. App. 2002).
Actual notice does not cure defective process. See, e.g., Mosby v. Gandy, 375 So.2d 1024, 1027 (Miss. 1979). “Even if a defendant is aware of a suit, the failure to comply with rules for the service of process, coupled with the failure of the defendant voluntarily to appear, prevents a judgment from being entered against him.” Sanghi, 759.
Rule 4 lists the requirements for a valid summons issued under Rule 4, and provides in pertinent part: “The summons shall be dated and signed by the clerk, be under the seal of the court, contain the name of the court and the names of the parties, be directed to the defendant, state the name and address of the plaintiff’s attorney, if any, otherwise the plaintiff’s address, and the time within which these rules require the defendant to appear and defend, and shall notify him that in case of his failure to do so judgment by default will be rendered against him for the relief demanded in the complaint…. Summons served by process server shall substantially conform to Form 1A.” M.R.C.P. 4(b) (emphasis added). The summons in Form 1A informs the defendant that he or she is “required to mail or hand deliver a copy of a written response to the Complaint” to the plaintiff’s attorney within thirty days or a default judgment will be entered against the defendant. M.R.C.P.App. A. Form 1A. The form further provides that the defendant “must also file the original of [his/her] response with the [appropriate trial court clerk] within a reasonable time[.]” Id. As we have noted before, use of the sample forms is not required, but their use is good practice because it “removes any question of sufficiency [of process] under the Rules.” Sanghi, 759 So.2d at 1256(¶ 28) (citing M.R.C.P. 84).

In his opinion overruling Willie’s Rule 60(b) motion, the chancellor acknowledged that Rule 4 is the proper form of summons in a divorce case, but found that the Rule 81 summons used by Aileen for the complaint substantially conformed to Form 1A. The summons did inform Willie that a judgment would be entered against him if he failed to appear and defend, as is required by Rule 4(b). However, the summons at issue contained substantial deviations from Rule 4. First, the Rule 81 summons stated: “You are not required to file an answer or other pleading but you may do so if you desire.” Second, the Rule 81 summons did not specify any deadline-specifically, that Willie was required to answer with a response to his wife’s attorney within thirty days. Third, the Rule 81 summons did not inform Willie that he was required to also file his answer with the chancery clerk within a reasonable time.

The COA, citing Sanghi, disagreed, finding substantial differences between Rule 4 and 81 summons, and held that failure to use the proper form of Rule 4 summons deprived the trial court of jurisdiction in the case, requiring reversal.

The COA also considered whether the resulting reversal of the trial judge’s denial of Rule 60(b) relief required setting aside the divorce, and found that it did. The court said: although “[t]he grant or denial of a 60(b) motion is generally within the discretion of the trial court, … [i]f the judgment is void, the trial court has no discretion. The court must set the void judgment aside.” Soriano v. Gillespie, 857 So.2d 64, 69-70(¶ 22) (Miss. App. 2003). A judgment is deemed void if the court rendering it lacked jurisdiction. Morrison v. DHS, 863 So.2d 948, 952(¶ 13) (Miss. 2004). A judgment is void “if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.” Id. (citation omitted).

The court also cited Kolikas at 879 for the proposition that the defendant is under no duty to notice what is filed in court against him unless he is properly served according to the rules, and the rules are to be strictly construed and applied as to process. It does not matter that the defendant knew that there was a lawsuit pending against him if he was not effectively served with process and notice.

Oddly — at least I find it odd — the court left standing the judge’s temporary judgment on the basis that Aileen had properly gotten process under Rule 81, and that the trial court did have personal jurisdiction over Willie. I say this is an oddity because in this district we have followed the principle that temporary relief is proper only in the context of a fault-based divorce action. I have never heard of a temporary action proceeding on its own, unattached, so to speak, to an underlying divorce action in which the trial court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. But that is what resulted here. The COA opinion stated:

Finally, Willie claims that Aileen’s motion for temporary support was “nothing more than a derivative action” of the divorce complaint, and, therefore, the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the divorce complaint extends to the motion for temporary relief.

Although Mississippi appellate courts are generally without jurisdiction to hear direct appeals from temporary orders, Michael v. Michael, 650 So.2d 469, 471 (Miss. 1995) (citing Miss.Code Ann. § 11-51-3 (Supp.1993)), the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is a final judgment that is reviewable. Sanghi, 759 So.2d at 1255(¶ 22).

As Rule 81 makes clear, an action for temporary relief in divorce and an action for divorce are two separate matters. Each requires the issuance of a different form of summons-the former requiring a Rule 81 summons and the latter requiring a Rule 4 summons. We simply do not see how improper service in the divorce action affects the chancery court’s jurisdiction to hear temporary matters. We, therefore, reject the notion that failure to achieve proper service in the divorce action renders the action for temporary relief void. Furthermore, we note that a separate Rule 81 summons was properly issued in Aileen’s action for temporary support, thus giving the chancellor jurisdiction to award temporary relief. This issue is without merit.

Another interesting wrinkle in this case is Judge Griffis’s specially concurring opinion where he says that ” … Rule 81 is a treacherous and often misunderstood rule.” He points out that parties on appeal have ” … fallen prey to the hidden tentacles …” of the rule and urges the Supreme Court to revise it.

I have heard other chancellors at judges’ meetings complain about Rule 81, but we really have not had any problems in this district understanding and following it (knock on wood) to this point. I would not be against eliminating Rule 81 if we could modify Rule 4 to create a short-notice procedure in certain actions unique to chancery such as temporary matters, contempts and certain probate proceedings where notice is required.

The moral of the Clark story is to comply strictly with the rules governing process or be prepared to clean up the mess that will follow.

WHAT DOES IT DO TO YOUR APPEAL WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE DOES A DOUBLE-TAKE?

August 11, 2011 § 4 Comments

Here’s a little nightmare scenario for you …

Chancellor renders a judgment of divorce. Among other provisions, the judge ordered that the homestead and certain personalty be sold by the Chancery Clerk, the administrative costs be paid, and then the remaining proceeds be divided between the parties. Your client is unhappy enough to pay you to file an appeal from the judge’s adjudication of equitable distribution. It takes him a couple of weeks to scrape together your fee, but the appeal clock still has plenty of ticks. Client comes in at last and pays the freight. You start work on the notice of appeal, and while you’re at it …

Twenty days after the judgment is entered, here comes a sua sponte order from the court clarifying the instructions to the clerk as to the specific items of personalty that were to be sold, and how the homestead proceeds were to be divided. You have other pressing matters on your plate, so you are relieved that the judge reset the appeal clock for you. Finally, 29 days after the clarifying order, your file your notice of appeal.

Is there a problem?

The above facts happened in Penton v. Penton, decided by the COA on April 13, 2010. Judge Barnes’ opinion points out that the appellate rules and our case law are silent as to the effect of a sua sponte order of the trial court such as that in this case. This second order was not a reconsideration with a substantive change of the original judgment. Reconsideration was limited to within ten days of the original judgment under MRCP 59. Nor did it involve correction of a clerical error under MRCP 60. The second order did not substantively change the award in the original judgment; it merely made the instructions clearer for the clerk.

Looking to federal case law, Judge Barnes concluded that ” … only when the lower court changes matters of substance, or resolves a genuine ambiguity, in a judgment previously rendered should the period within which an appeal must be taken … begin to run anew.” She found that the provisions of the second order were not substantive, so it did not have the effect of extending the appeal time from the original judgment.

The opinion noted that entry of the second order still left time for appeal from the original judgment, and that counsel could have filed a motion with the trial court to extend the time for appeal, if that were needed to evaluate the sua sponte order, but no such motion was filed.

The result was that the appeal was dismissed as untimely filed.

As a matter of practice, this case illustrates that it’s better under the current state of the appellate rules to file a premature notice of appeal than to file too late. Once the deadline passes without a motion to extend having been filed, the appeal is dead.

I’ve held off commenting on this case because it’s an unpublished opinion and obviously addresses a matter of first impression of Mississippi. I have surmised that publication is being held pending evaluation by the Supreme Court, since that court has jurisdiction to adjudicate first impression cases.

UCCR 8.05 TWEAKED AGAIN

August 10, 2011 § Leave a comment

The Supreme Court’s Rules Committee is soliciting your comments on proposed changes to UCCR 8.05. The change would add this language:

The disclosures shall include any and all assets and liabilities, whether marital or non-marital. A party is under a duty to supplement prior disclosures if that party knows that the disclosure, though correct when made, no longer accurately reflects any and all actual income and expenses and assets and liabilities, as required by this Rule.

The change addresses both the Trim case non-disclosure of assets problem and the duty to supplement.

As I’ve said before, many cases are plagued by incomplete and woefully inadequate 8.05 statements. Often, the statement offered is months old. Maybe this rule change will be a cure. But then again, I am an eternal optimist, even when reality does not justify it.

If you’re looking for ideas about how to improve your own 8.05’s and financial testimony, you can find some here, here and here.

You can find the proposed new rule here. Deadline for comments is September 6.

THE “INABILITY TO PAY” DEFENSE

August 4, 2011 § Leave a comment

We talked about the US Supreme Court’s decision in Turner v. Rogers here. In essence, the case mandates in a contempt proceeding that the defendant or respondent be advised that ability to pay is a critical issue in the case, that he or she may use a form (e.g., 8.05 financial statement) to submit the proof, that he or she be afforded the opportunity to offer testimony and responses about ability to pay, and a finding by the court of ability to pay as a prerequisite to finding contempt.

So what exactly is it that a defendant has to show to establish inability to pay?

In Seghini v. Seghini, 42 So.3d 635, 643 (Miss. App. 2010), the court state the outline of the rule:

The court’s power to imprison a person until he complies with the terms of a decree depends on that person’s present ability to comply with the decree. Wilborn v. Wilborn, 258 So.2d 804, 805 (Miss.1972). “Where the contemnor is unable to pay, even if that present inability is due to his misconduct, imprisonment cannot accomplish the purpose of a civil contempt decree, which is to compel obedience.” Jones v. Hargrove, 516 So.2d 1354, 1358 (Miss.1987) (citing Miss. Const. art. 3, § 30). But the defendant has the burden of proving his inability to pay and must make such showing with particularity and not in general terms. Clements v. Young, 481 So.2d 263, 271 (Miss.1985).

In Seghini, the court rejected the claim of inability to pay on the basis that there was no independent corroboration. The defendant had prepared both the business ledger and the tax return upon which he based his defense (Note: I have posted here previously about the ineffectiveness of self-corroboration). Moreover, the proof showed that the defendant was often paid in cash, and that he had successfully paid a significant sum under the temporary judgment, his alleged inability having arisen only after the divorce judgment.

In Clements v. Young, cited above, the defendant offered no proof at all of inability to pay. In fact, his lawyer conceded on the record that his client had an ability to pay.

In Woodfin v. Woodfin, 26 So.3d 389, 393 (Miss. App. 2010), the court upheld a chancellor’s rejection of the defense on the basis that the defendant had failed to provide “particular evidence” of inability to pay. The decision states that it was his burden to prove inability to pay by clear and convincing evidence. The court went on to find affirmatively that he did have the ability to pay, based on his Rule 8.05 financial statement.

Inability to pay must be shown in particular terms. McIntosh v. DHS, 886 So.2d 721, 725 (Miss. 2004), Howard v. Howard, 913 So.2d 1030, 1036 (Miss. App. 2005)

In Howard, the court pointed out that when the defendant discovers his inability to comply with the court order, he must file a petition to modify immediately, and it is not appropriate to find him in contempt after he does so. See also, Setser v. Piazza, 644 So.2d 1211, 1216 (Miss. 1994). The prompt filing of a modification action, however, only precludes a finding of contempt, and does not excuse any arrearage. Thurman v. Thurman, 559 So.2d 1014, 1016-71 (Miss. 1990); Cumberland v. Cumberland, 564 So.2d 839, 847 (Miss. 1990).

What constitutes particular proof of inability to pay will obviously depend on the facts of the case at hand. Assets available for liquidation should be taken in consideration. See, Doyle v. Doyle, 55 So.3d 1097, 1111-1112 (Miss. App. 2010). The fact that another resident of the household, such as a new spouse, is helping pay household expenses, would be a factor. And evidence that the defendant enjoys a standard of living inconsistent with inability to pay is persuasive.

THE INTERNET AND THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW, CHAPTER TWO

August 2, 2011 § Leave a comment

Only yesterday morning, I posted here about the internet and the unauthorized practice of law, taking the position that internet legal-forms dealers are practicing law without a license and raising the question “I wonder what the state bar and the district attorneys are doing to rein this in?”

Well, ask and ye shall receive.

Yesterday afternoon I received an email from the state bar announcing that it filed a petition with the Supreme Court last Friday to amend the appellate rules and the rules of professional conduct to define more clearly the practice of law and to spell out sanctions available to the courts for those who are found to be engaged in unauthorized practice.

You can read the proposed rules here.

Apropos of what I said in my post yesterday is a provision making it clear that drafting legal documents and pleadings is in itself practicing law. There are many other provisions in what amounts to a sweeping and all-encompassing statement of what constitutes the practice of law.

I urge you to read these proposed changes and I encourage you to comment on them if comments are called for. If the Supreme Court accepts these, they will likely be sent to the Rules Committee, of which I am a member. If it comes to that, I will welcome any input.

As I said in my prior post, this is not about the legal profession or convenience for judges. It is about protecting the public. I commend the bar for addressing this problem.

WHEN IT COMES TIME TO BAIL OUT

July 28, 2011 § 5 Comments

Sometimes it happens that you find it necessary to withdraw from representing a client. Maybe an ethical dilemma has reared its head. Or perhaps you and your client have developed irreconcilable differences. Or it could be that your client has not met the terms of the employment contract as to cooperation or payment or in some other way.

Once you have entered an appearance in a case, you are in it until the court lets you out. You may not avoid responsibility simply by not participating further. So when the need arises, how can you make an effective exit?

Uniform Chancery Court Rule (UCCR) 1.08 provides: “When an attorney makes an appearance for any party in an action, the attorney will not be allowed to withdraw as counsel for the party except upon written motion and after reasonable notice to the client and opposing counsel.”

In other words, it’s not good enough to get an agreed order signed by counsel opposite and present it to the judge. Nor is it adequate to get your client to sign off on an order.

Here is what you have to do, step by step:

File a motion to withdraw. Set out a general statement of your reason without compromising the interest of your client in the litigation.
File the motion and send a copy of it with certificate of service to opposing counsel and the client.
Notice the motion for hearing.
If your client and opposing counsel will sign an agreed order allowing you to withdraw, present it to the court for entry.
If either your client or opposing counsel, or both, object, hold a hearing and ask the court to rule on your motion.

Several caveats:

If the case is set for trial, most chancellors will allow you to withdraw only in the most urgent and exigent circumstances.
No chancellor will allow you to withdraw if to do so will seriously prejudice your client.
You may not withdraw in any probate matter unless there is an attorney who will substitute for you. UCCR 6.01 requires that the fiduciary retain an attorney, unless the fiduciary is a licensed attorney.
Be general in stating a reason. Okay: “The undersigned attorney and the plaintiff have differences of opinion about handling this case that can not be resolved.” Not okay: “My client has filed three bar complaints against me and has retained counsel to sue me for malpractice, and I have reason to believe he is concealing assets from the court.”
Don’t include any language in your order that absolves you of any responsibility for anything you did in the case, or approves everything you did; that’s overreaching. You may state that you are relieved of all further responsibility from and after the date of the order allowing withdrawal.
Many chancellors will not permit you to withdraw if the only basis is non-payment of fees. Their rationale is that you took on a professional duty to represent the client when you entered an appearance, and that duty is higher than your desire to be paid.

Where Am I?