The Dismissive Dismissal
October 31, 2016 § 2 Comments
In the case of Crater v. BNY Mellon, handed down October 18, 2016, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of standing and refused her motion to amend.
Bank of New York (BNY) Mellon had begin foreclosure on the deed of trust (DT) on Brenda Crater’s home. She filed suit alleging that her original mortgage company, HLC, had improperly assigned its interest in the DT to BNY Mellon.
Mellon moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim (R 12(b)(6)) on the basis that Crater had no standing to dispute the assignment.
Crater then filed a motion to amend to assert various new claims, including fraud.
The chancellor, six days later, summarily dismissed Crater’s complaint.
Crater moved to amend or alter the dismissal order claiming that the court improperly failed to grant her motion to amend. The chancellor overruled the motion and refused to grant leave to amend, finding that the new claims had no legal basis and were barred by the SOL. Brenda appealed.
In its opinion, by Judge Greenlee, the court rejected Brenda’s argument that the trial judge erroneously dismissed her complaint:
¶10. Crater asserts that the trial court erred by not ruling on her motion to amend her
complaint prior to granting Mellon’s motion to dismiss. Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) states that when a Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion is before the court, leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. M.R.C.P. 15(a). If the facts and circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, she should be given the opportunity to test her claim on the merits. Webb [v. Braswell, 930 So.2d ]387] at 393 (¶9) (citing Moeller v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins., 812 So. 2d 953, 962 (¶28) (Miss. 2002)). If it is apparent that the amendment would cause undue prejudice to the opposing party because the amendment would be futile, then leave should not be freely given. Id.
The court went on to find that, since Crater’s new claims were against a non-party who had not been served with process, and the SOL barred the vague claims, and since they invoked a statutory right that did not exist, amendment would be futile, and should not have been granted. The chancellor, therefore, was not in error.
This case is a reminder that, if you get dismissed per R12(b)(6), you do not have an automatic right to a do-over on your pleadings. You must have a viable, judiciable claim.
The amendment provision of 12(b)(6) is designed to prevent an otherwise viable suit from being dismissed due to flawed pleading. For instance, if you file a child custody modification case and do not plead that “there has been a material change in circumstances that is having or has had an adverse effect on the minor child,” or words to that effect, the complaint fails to state a claim. See, McMurry v. Sadler, 846 So.2d 240, 244 (Miss. App. 2002). If the other side tests the sufficiency of your pleading that omitted those words, and the judge sustains their motion, you should be granted leave to amend to add the appropriate language.
If you get dinged by a 12(b)(6) motion, be sure you make an immediate motion for leave to amend. The rule specifically states that, ” … if the motion is granted, leave to amend shall be granted in accordance with Rule 15(a).” The rule does not say that the judge shall automatically grant it without your motion to do so, although I see no reason why the judge can not; however, if the judge does not do it sua sponte, and you stood silent, you should assume that you don’t have leave to amend, and your suit may go bye-bye with the running of time.
A post on the critical importance of pleading both material change and adverse effect in custody-modification cases is at this link.
Standing to Pursue a Rule 60 Motion
October 10, 2016 § Leave a comment
We discussed here last week the case of Doe v. Smith, the adoption case in which an adoption judgment was set aside for fraud on the court, and which was affirmed by the MSSC. The fraud was the intentionally false statements in the Consent to the adoption and in the testimony of the natural mother, Katy, that she did not know who was the natural father of the child to be adopted.
One of the issues raised on appeal by Catherine, the adoptive mother, was that Stan, the natural father, had no standing to file a R60 motion assertng the fraud issue in the adoption for the reason that he was not a party to the adoption.
In its decision, rendered September 22, 2016, the court rejected Catherine’s argument. Justice Maxwell for the court:
¶20. Catherine is correct that Stan was not a party to Matthew’s adoption. Honing in on this fact, she argues that Rule 60(b)(1) relief from the adoption decree is unavailable to Stan because he was a nonparty. See In re Adoption of A.S.E.L., 111 So. 3d 1243, 1249-51 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). However, Catherine is viewing Katy’s misdeeds as “fraud . . . of an adverse party”—the type of fraud discussed in that case. Id. But Katy’s deceptions and omissions were not mere frauds of an adverse party. Rather, the judge found they had caused a “fraud upon the court.” M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6). And Rule 60(b)(6) authorizes courts to hear “independent actions”—such as the one filed by Stan—to set aside a “judgment for fraud upon the court.” M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6).
¶21. Rule 60(b)(6) does not require that an independent action be labeled as such. Hester v. State, 749 So. 2d 1221, 1223-24 (¶ 12) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (citing Bankers Mortg. Co. v. United States, 423 F.2d 73, 77, 81 n.7 (5th Cir. 1970)). And, as federal treatment of a similar rule shows, “when the 60(b) relief is sought by an independent action, there is no time limit save laches on when the action may be brought.” Id. (quoting In re Casco Chem. Co., 335 F.2d 645, 652 (5th Cir. 1964)).
¶22. The independent-action principle has been applied by the court of appeals to a
nonparty’s complaint to set aside a judgement.[Fn 17] See In re Estate of Pearson, 25 So. 3d 392, 395 (¶ 14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). In Pearson, an unwed, natural father petitioned the chancery court to set aside the final judgment closing his minor daughter’s estate. The father did so because the natural mother fraudulently excluded him as an heir. Id. at 393 (¶ 3). The natural mother, in the petition to determine heirs, swore she was unaware of the natural father’s name and averred the natural father was deceased. Id. at 393 (¶ 2). As in Pearson, Stan, a nonparty, filed an action raising the natural mother’s falsities as a fraud upon the court. And while Stan did file his petition under the same cause number as Matthew’s adoption, he named new parties to the proceedings and issued numerous summons to each named party.
[Fn 17] Cf. Byrd v. Woods, 90 So. 3d 666, 671-72 (¶ 24) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (noting that Hester v. State “approved” independent actions under Rule 60(b)(6) in Mississippi).
¶23. But Catherine argues that Stan’s only basis for standing is under Mississippi Code
Section 93-17-5(3). And this would require the chancellor to make findings under
Mississippi Code Section 93-17-6(4) to determine whether Stan was entitled to notice and to be made a party under Section 93-17-5. Catherine is correct that these statutes previously have been used by unwed, putative fathers to enter an appearance and contest an adoption. But again, there is a distinction between “fraud . . . of an adverse party” and “fraud upon the court.” Stan was not trying to establish his right to notice or object to ongoing adoption proceedings. He was arguing to set aside a final adoption obtained through fraud. And when compelling circumstances exist, Rule 60(b)(6) authorizes trial judges to set aside judgments obtained by a fraud upon the court.
¶24. We find that Stan’s petition was an independent action under Rule 60(b)(6). And as an independent action, the chancellor had authority to rule on Stan’s petition based on fraud upon the court.
So there is a right of a non-party to bring an independent action under R60(b)(6) where “compelling circumstances exist.”
I don’t know about you, but I find it hard to wrap my mind around Catherine’s argument. Stan’s omission from the original action was a direct result of fraud that concealed his parenthood and, ergo, his necessity to be joined as a party, from the court. The fraud resulted in a proceeding in which he was not invited to participate, and which resulted in a judgment of which he had not notice. So, under Catherine’s theory, he now must be barred from filing a R60 motion because he did not participate as a party, even though that was due to fraud? That makes no sense to me.
No Fraud, No Foul
October 6, 2016 § Leave a comment
A couple of days ago we discussed a case in which a natural mother falsely and fraudulently claimed not to know who was the father of her child, which led a chancellor to enter an adoption judgment that later had to be set aside for fraud on the court.
Fraud on the court was the issue in a recent COA case, but the result was different than that in the adoption case.
Ronald and Belinda Betts were divorced in 2011. Belinda later sued Ronald for contempt several times. In one of those proceedings, Ronald had omitted a debt on his financial statement, and the chancellor noted that such an omission “can amount to a fraud perpetrated on the court and contempt.
When Belinda filed a third contempt action against Ronald, he borrowed a page from the chancellor’s earlier admonition and claimed in defense that the divorce judgment entered the previous year should be set aside per R60(b)(6) because Belinda made a false representation to the court in her divorce-action financial statement by omitting her interest in some property she inherited jointly with her sister. Belinda countered that she did not know or believe the land to be her property at the time.
The chancellor overruled Ronald’s motion and found him in contempt for non-payment of amounts he was ordered to pay under the divorce judgment. Ronald appealed.
In Betts v. Betts, handed down September 13, 2006, the COA affirmed. Judge Griffis wrote for a unanimous court:
¶11. Ronald argues that Belinda’s failure to list the property on her Rule 8.05 financial statement constituted an intentional filing of a substantially false statement and fraud upon the court. Belinda contends that Ronald’s unclean hands bar him from relief.
¶12. Rule 60 provides in part:
(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons:
. . . .
(6) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment.
“Rule 60(b)(6) provides a ‘catch-all’ provision under which relief may be granted in
exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as for fraud upon the court.” Trim v. Trim, 33 So. 3d 471, 475 (¶7) (Miss. 2010).
¶13. “Relief based on ‘fraud upon the court’ is reserved for only the most egregious misconduct, and requires a showing of ‘an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision.’” Id. at 477 (¶15). “[S]imply failing to disclose essential facts to the proceedings to the adverse party or the court does not rise to the level of fraud. There must be a finding that the disclosure was intentional.” Finch, 137 So. 3d at 235 (¶23).
¶14. “[A] party’s intentional filing of a substantially false Rule 8.05 financial statement constitutes a fraud on the court.” Trim, 33 So. 3d at 478 (¶17). And “no time limit constrain[s] the chancellor’s ability to modify the divorce judgment to remedy the fraud on the court.” Id.
¶15. The following elements constituting intentional or fraudulent representation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence:
(1) a representation, (2) its falsity, (3) its materiality, (4) the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth, (5) his intent that it should be acted on by the hearer and in the manner reasonably contemplated, (6) the hearer’s ignorance of its falsity, (7) his reliance on its truth, (8) his right to rely thereon, and (9) his consequent and proximate injury.
Id. at (¶19) (citing McCord v. Healthcare Recoveries Inc., 960 So. 2d 399, 406 (¶17) (Miss. 2007)).
¶16. The chancellor declined to set aside or modify the divorce decree after finding that Belinda did not intentionally mislead the court and that Ronald came to court with unclean hands after failing to disclose certain property rights on his Rule 8.05 financial statement. “[T]he trial court is best able to determine whether a fraud has been perpetrated upon it. As a result, the chancellor’s determination of the issue is entitled to great weight.” Tirouda v. State, 919 So. 2d 211, 216 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). “The credibility of the witnesses and the weight of their testimony, as well as the interpretation of evidence where it is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation, are primarily for the chancellor as the trier of fact.” Trim, 33 So. 3d at 479 (¶20).
¶17. The testimony from Belinda supports the chancellor’s conclusion that she did not know of her false representation to the court. She simply did not consider the property her own. She had not paid for the property, and she was not using the property for any purpose. The testimony showed that her mother currently or previously lived on the property, and Belinda considered it her parents’ land. Intentional or fraudulent representation requires that a representation be made, which the speaker knows to be false, with the intent that it should be acted on by the hearer. Fitch, 137 So. 3d at 235 (¶23).
¶18. Belinda’s conduct was not shown to be “the most egregious misconduct, . . . ‘an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision.’” Trim, 33 So. 3d at 477 (¶15). And even though she failed to list the property in her Rule 8.05 financial statement, “simply failing to disclose essential facts to the proceedings to the adverse party or to the court does not rise to the level of fraud.” Finch, 137 So. 3d at 235 (¶23). “[A] party is not entitled to relief [under Rule 60(b)] simply because he is unhappy with a judgment.” McNeese v. McNeese, 119 So. 3d 264, 272 (¶20) (Miss. 2013).
¶19. Furthermore, Ronald himself failed to list mineral rights in his possession on his Rule 8.05 financial statement, leading the chancellor to find that Ronald came to court with unclean hands. “Mississippi’s chancery courts are courts of equity, and under the clean[-]hands doctrine, anyone that comes before ‘a court of equity . . . must do equity as a condition of recovery.’” Dill v. Dill, 908 So. 2d 198, 202 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). “This doctrine, in effect, prevents a complainant from petitioning the court to modify an original decree absent proof that said complainant has fully performed under the terms of the original decree or, in the alternative, that full performance thereunder has been wholly impossible.” Id. The chancellor noted: “Just as Belinda failed to disclose an asset at the time of their divorce, so did Ronald.”
¶20. This Court finds that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in denying Ronald relief under Rule 60(b). As such, the substantial evidence supports the chancellor’s discretionary ruling as the fact-finder.
Before you wade off into the shark-infested waters of R60 on a raft of fraud, make sure it is stout enough to support your case.
Not every omission of evidence amounts to a fraud on the court. This case is a good recitation of the law on the point. You should file it away for future reference.
A Tragic Fraud on the Court
October 3, 2016 § 1 Comment
It’s hard to imagine a legal proceeding more tragic and heart-wrenching than the setting aside of an adoption. Most chancellors go to extremes to ensure that there are no flaws in the proceeding that might jeopardize the finality of an adoption judgment.
In the recent MSSC case, Doe v. Smith, decided September 22, 2016, the chancellor entered an adoption judgment based on the natural mother’s statement in the Consent and in her sworn testimony that she was unaware of the natural father of her child, Matthew. Stan, the natural father, however, learned of the adoption and filed a R60(b)(6) motion to set the judgment aside for fraud. At the hearing on that motion, the natural mother, Katy, admitted on the witness stand that she had lied, the chancellor set aside the adoption judgment.The adoptive mother appealed. One of her grounds was that the chancellor erred in setting aside the judgment. Justice Maxwell, writing for a unanimous court, addressed the argument this way:
¶14. A fraud upon the court is an intentional misdeed that “vitiates a judgment” because “the court is misled and deceived” about the facts it relies upon when administering the law. Trim [v. Trim], 33 So. 3d [471,]at 477 (¶ 15) [(Miss. 2010)] (quoting Brown v. Wesson, 74 So. 831, 834 (Miss. 1917)). Rule 60(b)(6) gives judges broad authority to set aside judgments entered, resulting from such fraud. Trim, 33 So. 3d at 475 (¶ 7) (citing M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) and Tirouda v. State, 919 So. 2d 211, 214 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005)). However, to qualify as “fraud upon the court,” there must be exceptional and compelling circumstances and the deceptive act(s) must be material and extreme. Not just any falsity or misstep, even if intentional, is enough for relief.
¶15. “Relief based on ‘fraud upon the court’ is reserved for only the most egregious misconduct, and requires a showing of ‘an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision.’” [Fn13] Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 873 F. 2d 869, 872 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F. 2d 1332, 1338 (5th Cir. 1978)). Mere nondisclosure of pertinent facts to the court “does not add up to ‘fraud upon the court’ for purposes of vacating a judgment under Rule 60(b).” Trim, 33 So. 3d at 477-78 (¶ 16) (quoting Kerwit Med. Prods., Inc. v. N & H Instruments, Inc., 616 F.2d 833, 836 n.8 (5th Cir. 1980)). Furthermore, the fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Moore v. Jacobs, 752 So. 2d 1013, 1017 (Miss. 1999) (citing Stringfellow v. Stringfellow, 451 So. 2d 219, 221 (Miss. 1984)).
[Fn 13] See also In re Guardianship of McClinton, 157 So. 3d 862, 870 (¶ 17) (Miss.
2015) (Rule 60(b)(6) is a “catch all” provision for exceptional and compelling
circumstances) and Roberts v. Lopez, 148 So. 3d 393, 399 (¶ 12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (the substantial misrepresentation of facts on which a judgment is based constitutes a fraud on the court).
¶16. Here, the chancellor found Katy’s deceptive acts and omissions—which she admitted she knowingly made—met these high marks. Katy had filed a voluntary, sworn joinder and consent to Matthew’s adoption.[Fn 14] And in it, she represented she was unaware of Matthew’s biological father’s name, identity, or address. But under oath at the April 21, 2015, hearing, Katy admitted to lying about Matthew’s father’s identity in her consent. She also admitted she lied when testifying at Matthew’s adoption proceeding. She said she did so because she knew Stan would be a poor parent and caregiver.
[Fn 14] Under Mississippi Code Section 93-17-5, Katy was required to either provide her consent to the adoption or appear and contest it. Miss. Code Ann. § 93-17-5(1), (4) (Rev. 2013).
¶17. We have held that the effective administration of justice requires our chancellors have accurate financial information to distribute marital assets during divorce. See Trim, 33 So.3d at 477-78 (¶¶ 16, 17) (finding a party who filed a substantially false, statutorily required Rule 8.05 statement committed a fraud upon the court). So certainly, an intentional fraud aimed solely to circumvent a natural parent’s statutorily mandated consent [Fn 15] to an adoption undermines the effective administration of justice.
[Fn 15] See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-17-5(1), (4) (Rev, 2013).
¶18. The chancellor found that Katy knew who Matthew’s father was after the first
paternity test excluded her husband. And she withheld this information from the court and all parties involved. He held that Katy knowingly had misled the court and all parties through her testimony, affidavit, and nondisclosures regarding Matthew’s paternity.
¶19. And because the heart of Katy’s actions was designed to deceive the court, by lying about and omitting material facts to trick the court into granting a supposed uncontested adoption, the chancellor properly found that a fraud was committed upon his court. [Fn 16]
[Fn 16] The requirement that fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct be proved by clear and convincing evidence is moot here, since Katy admitted her fraud. See Moore v. Jacobs, 752 So.2d 1013, 1017 (¶ 18) (Miss. 1999).
There was nothing in the record to show that either the adoptive parents or their attorney knew of Katy’s false statements.
A few observations:
- Adoption proceedings underwent a change effective April 16, 2016. You need to familiarize yourself with those changes if you are going to handle any adoptions. This decision is under the old adoption procedure.
- The main thing to take away here is how easy it is for parties who are unencumbered by ethical considerations to lie when it suits them. As a lawyer you should be especially diligent and inquisitive when a natural mother claims not to know who was the father.
- This case underscores how ruinous a fraud on the court can be. Imagine the joy of the adoptive parents when they walked out of the courthouse with their new baby; and imagine their devastation when the child was taken away from them some nine moths later. That’s why lawyers should take extra care, as much as they can, to make sure that something like this does not happen.
A similar thing happened in my court. The mother signed a Consent stating that she did not know who was the natural father, and the adoption agency gave the child to the adoptive parents pending the adoption. Before the adoption could be presented, however, the natural father intervened and objected to the adoption. The adoptive parents conceded the inevitable and surrendered the child to the father.
Another issue raised on appeal was whether the natural father had standing to file a R60 motion in the case, since he was not a party. That’s a subject for another post.
Settlement Announcements: What Could go Wrong?
September 14, 2016 § 4 Comments
The COA’s memorable decision in Pearson v. Browning, 106 So.3d 845 (Miss. App. 2012), is notable for the fact that it reversed the trial court because the counterclaiming party had not been served with a R81 summons for trial. I think most chancellors up to then — and even now — believe that once you invoke the jurisdiction of the court by filing a pleading (particularly a pleading on offense), you have submitted yourself to the jurisdiction of the court, and no further process is necessary, only notice per R5.
The reversal did not resolve the dispute between the parties, though. They went right back at it, and found themselves back in trial on contempt issues before the same chancellor. On November 5, 2013, the chancellor again ruled against Dennis Pearson, who appealed yet again. This time he contended that the original judgment rendered October 13, 2005, although styled as an “agreed” judgment, included terms not embraced in the settlement announcement and was not signed either by him or his attorney, and so was ineffective.
The COA affirmed in Pearson v. Browning, handed down August 16, 2016. Judge Irving wrote for the court:
¶8. Dennis argues that the October 13, 2005 “agreed” modification order was invalid
because he did not agree to its terms and that neither he nor his attorney signed the order, as required by Uniform Rule of Chancery Court 5.03. Rule 5.03 states: “Every consent Judgment must be approved and signed by counsel for all parties to the suit who may be represented by counsel and interested in or affected thereby before being presented to the Chancellor for his signature. The Court may also require the parties to sign.”
¶9. Dennis argues that “[i]t is clear from looking at the transcript of August 16, 2005[,]
. . . that the agreement read into the record differed from the agreement as later written in the October 13, 2005 ‘Agreed Order.’” However, Dennis makes no specific argument regarding what is different. The chancellor’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on this issue state that the October 13, 2005 agreed order “is a mirror image of the parties’ agreement as read into the record.” Dennis only complains about the portion of the order granting Patricia all equity in the marital home. However, Dennis clearly agreed to this, as well as the other provisions of the order, during the August 16, 2005 hearing.
¶10. During the August 16, 2005 hearing, Dennis’s attorney stated into the record, “We
have reached an agreement regarding all issues contained in the pleadings.” Counsel then proceeded to detail modifications to the visitation schedule; the requirement that within sixty days, Patricia would refinance the marital home, Dennis would quitclaim his interest in the marital home to her, and she would be responsible for all mortgage payments on the home; the parties’ agreement to waive any contempt issues regarding past-due bills or visitation; and each parent’s right to claim one child as a dependent for tax purposes. The parties were then placed under oath and questioned by the chancellor about the modifications. Dennis’s testimony was as follows:
Q. [Dennis,] did you understand what the attorneys read into the record as
your agreement?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Was that your agreement?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Do you understand that this agreement will be put into writing and will
become the court’s order?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you understand that failure to follow the agreement could result in
a contempt charge against you?
A. I do.
¶11. In ruling on Dennis’s motion to set aside the agreed order as invalid, the chancellor found Dennis’s signature on the agreed order unnecessary as “surplusage,” since the agreement had been read into the record and agreed to under oath by both parties. Also, in finding no merit to Dennis’s argument that the order was inconsistent with the settlement agreement read into the record, the chancellor stated in his findings of fact and conclusions of law:
The next day after the hearing (October 14, 2005), Dennis signed a Quitclaim Deed at a bank. This act by Dennis is consistent with the agreement of the parties in the transcript. This Quitclaim Deed transfers Dennis and Patricia’s interest in the marital home and property to Patricia and her present husband, Steven. Dennis now claims that the property was conveyed to Patricia in exchange for Patricia waiving her interest in the Thrift Savings Plan and retirement. This is inconsistent with the August 16, 2005 transcript, the October 13, 2005 Agreed Judgment of Modification, and Dennis’s act of conveyance in signing the Quitclaim Deed one (1) day after the Judgment.
¶12. This Court addressed a similar issue in McDonald v. McDonald, 850 So. 2d 1182
(Miss. Ct. App. 2002), aff’d on cert., 876 So. 2d 296 (Miss. 2004). In McDonald, the wife
filed for modification of the visitation schedule that was established at the time of her and her husband’s divorce. Id. at 1185 (¶3). A hearing was held, and both parties agreed to the new schedule. Id. at (¶4). However, the husband later refused to sign an agreed order. Id. at (¶5). The wife filed a “Motion for Entry of Agreed Order.” Id. The chancellor signed and entered the order without the husband’s or his counsel’s signature. Id. at 1186 (¶5). The husband appealed, arguing the “agreed” order was invalid, as he did not sign it and did not agree with its terms. Id. at 1188 (¶18). We agreed with the husband “that there must be consent for a consent decree.” Id. at (¶21). However, we also noted that “[a] consent judgment is in the nature of a contract,” and is binding as such. Id. at 1189 (¶25). Despite the husband later changing his mind, we found that at the relevant time for consent—when the settlement terms were announced in open court—the husband did agree to the settlement, and his agreement at that time was sufficient to be contractually binding. Id.
¶13. Specifically, we held that the circumstances of announcing in open court the settlement of the dispute that is the purpose for that hearing, with a recital of the terms of the settlement into the record, followed by an agreement to end the hearing, reflects an intention to be bound at that time. Absent any showing that the final written order did not reflect the agreement announced in court, or any identification of a matter cognizable under [Mississippi] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 60 that could lead to setting aside a consent decree after [its] being entered—and neither showing exists here—we find that the parties were bound by their agreement even before it was reduced to a formal written order. McDonald, 850 So. 2d at 1189 (¶¶25-26).
¶14. While neither Dennis nor his attorney signed the agreed order, the hearing transcript reflects that Dennis understood the agreement that was read into the record and that he understood that the agreement would be put into writing and become the court’s order. His attorney made no objection at the hearing to the entry of the order. The supreme court has found that proceedings recorded by a court reporter are sufficient to prove agreement by the parties. See Samples v. Davis, 904 So. 2d 1061, 1066 (¶15) (Miss. 2004) (“If parties reach an agreement, the agreement containing the terms should be signed by the parties’ attorney(s) or in appropriate cases, the parties, or recorded by the court reporter.” (Emphasis added)). Dennis has not provided any proof that the agreed order did not reflect the terms of the settlement agreement read into the record. Therefore, the settlement agreement announced in court and later reduced to writing was sufficient evidence of the parties’ consent to be bound. This issue is without merit.
So the case would appear to turn on Dennis’s failure to spell out in detail exactly how the judgment varied from the announcement. I think it’s laudable that the chancellor went to the trouble of addressing Dennis’s attack on the then-eight-year-old-judgment, given the prior appellate history of this case. I am sure the chancellor was trying to ensure no more appellate ricochets.
Still, I wonder why no one pointed out that Dennis should have raised this issue of the validity of the 2005 judgment by filing a notice of appeal within 30 days of that judgment. ‘way back in 2005 — now more than ten years ago and counting. Is this really a jurisdictional argument he is making, or is this a ministerial omission that could have been cured with a R59 motion?
This case highlights why I don’t like settlement announcements. It seems that one party is always looking for a way to wriggle out of them, and they often find lawyers willing to take their money to aid them in the attempt. Words spoken are never as precise as words reduced to writing. Better to reduce the agreement to writing so all can see and edit, and then have everyone sign. That’s my position, and I’m sticking to it.
When Excusable Neglect Isn’t
August 8, 2016 § Leave a comment
We discussed here before the concept of excusable neglect and how it can be a trap for the unwary. You can read about it at this link.
In that case, Nunnery v. Nunnery, the COA upheld a chancellor’s decision that the concept of excusable neglect did not excuse an untimely appeal and other actions that could have kept the case viable, even in the face of some extreme, and emotional, facts.
Later, in early 2016, we noted here that the MSSC had granted cert.
Now the MSSC has spoken, and its decision in Nunnery v. Nunnery, handed down July 21, 2016, affirms the COA and the trial court in a 4-3-2 decision. The gist of the majority decision, written by Justice Coleman, is this:
¶15. An excusable-neglect determination “is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.” Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 397 (1993). The Pioneer Court then adopted the following four-part, excusable-neglect test: (1) “the danger of prejudice to the [non movant],” (2) “the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings,” (3) “the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and” (4) “whether the movant acted in good faith.” Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co., 507 U.S. at 395.
The decision goes on to note the many cases in which the 4-prong Pioneer test has been applied in the federal courts, and concludes, ” … and we hold that it is an appropriate guide for our courts.”
The court went on to analyze the chancellor’s ruling and concluded that she had considered the four Pioneer factors, that her findings were supported by the evidence in the record, and that there was no abuse of discretion. Thus, affirmance.
The dissent did its own analysis of the record and reached a contrary result, essentially substituting its judgment for the trial judge’s.
One aspect of the case at the trial level was that there was a 15-month delay between the filing of a R59 motion and its disposal by the court. The delay was due to the fact that the defendants-movants never called it for hearing. The dissent blamed the plaintiffs, charging that they should have called it up themselves to mitigate the delay. The majority addressed that this way:
¶20. We pause before closing to address the dissent’s striking assertion that the fifteen month delay caused by the defendants’ failure to seek a ruling on their motion for a new trial should actually be weighed against the plaintiffs. (Dis. Op. at ¶ 37). The dissent would hold that the delay shows the plaintiffs were not prejudiced because, if they were being prejudiced, surely they would have sought a ruling on the motion themselves. Mississippi law and practice clearly put the onus on the movant to obtain a ruling on a pending motion. Billiot v. State, 454 So. 2d 445, 456 (Miss. 1984). We cannot effectively agree to penalize parties who had no reason to know they were responsible for calling up the opposing party’s motion and, that because they did not do so, will face the Court using against them a failure that belongs squarely at the feet of their opponents.
The cautionary tale here is that “Excusable neglect” can be a velvet trap: attractive yet fraught with peril. You mustn’t view it as the one-size-fits-all escape hatch whereby your local chancellor will save you from your oversights. On the contrary, when applied properly, it is an equitable analysis in which the court must weigh the prejudice to and interest of the opposing party, judicial economy and delay, the reasons for the delay, and the operation of good faith.
New Discovered Evidence that Isn’t
August 2, 2016 § Leave a comment
In the divorce action between Paul and Laura Lacoste, the chancellor awarded Laura sole physical and legal custody of their two children, equitably divided the marital estate, and awarded Laura rehabilitative alimony.
After the final judgment was entered, Paul filed a R59 motion claiming that there was newly discovered evidence that: (1) Laura had moved to the Mississippi Gulf Coast, taking the children with her; (2) Laura had cashed out a retirement account, sticking him with a more than $13,000 tax bill; (3) the accounting bill for the 2013 taxes had increased; and (4) his income had decreased. The chancellor ruled that the issues raised in Paul’s motion were more properly modification issues, and denied him rehearing. Paul appealed on this and several other points.
In Lacoste v. Lacoste, decided July 19, 2016, the COA affirmed. Judge Barnes wrote for the majority:
¶55. A motion for a new trial under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 59 based on newly discovered evidence “is an extraordinary motion, and the requirements of the rule must be strictly met.” McNeese v. McNeese, 119 So. 3d 264, 272 (¶20) (Miss. 2013). Newly discovered evidence is evidence that existed at the time of trial, but was discovered after trial; it does not include “evidence that did not exist at the time of trial.” In re V.M.S., 938 So. 2d 829, 834 (¶10) (Miss. 2006) (citing Gray v. Gray, 562 So. 2d 79, 82 (Miss. 1990) (stating that authorities interpreting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) “seem unanimous in holding that” newly discovered evidence “must have been in existence at the time of trial or at the time of the judgment which is allegedly in need of correcting”)).
¶56. None of Paul’s claims are newly discovered evidence. Laura’s alleged move occurred posttrial. Thus, Laura’s alleged move cannot qualify as newly discovered evidence. The additional tax burden resulting from Laura cashing out a retirement account is likewise not newly discovered evidence. Paul testified at trial that he was aware that Laura cashed out the account in 2013. He testified that he did not know if Laura had withheld taxes when she cashed out the account, but that he realized if she did not, it would “greatly” impact the parties’ tax liability if they filed jointly. Laura admitted at trial to withdrawing the money from her retirement account, and she testified there would be penalties and additional taxes as a result of her doing so. Paul had a CPA whom he typically contacted on a monthly basis who could have investigated the tax consequences of the retirement account’s liquidation. The fact that he failed to request the CPA to do so until after trial does not make this evidence newly discovered. Finally, Paul’s argument that his income had decreased in the first three months of 2014 is not newly discovered evidence, as this did not occur until after trial.
¶57. As to Paul’s arguments regarding Laura’s alleged move, the chancellor recognized his concern regarding this in her opinion, stating, “Paul was concerned about Laura moving from the Madison area to be near her family and friends in the Atlanta or Ocean Springs area.” So the chancellor was aware Laura’s moving was a possibility and was able to consider it when rendering her opinion. Regardless, none of Paul’s assertions are newly discovered evidence, and the chancellor correctly excluded them from consideration posttrial. This issue is without merit.
From this case you can take away at least the following:
- Evidence that is newly discovered must be evidence that was in existence at the time of the trial, but was unknown to or concealed from the movant so that it prevented from having been presented.
- Newly discovered evidence does not include matters which were known to the movant but, for whatever reason, were not presented at trial to the court, or which by due diligence could have been known and presented.
- Facts that arise after entry of the judgment are matters that are properly presented as a contempt or modification.
MRE Restyle Up for Comment
June 6, 2016 § Leave a comment
This is your last week to comment on the MSSC’s proposed restyle of the rules of evidence. You can access them at this link.
The project was undertaken by the MSSC Advisory Committee on Rules, with a goal of making our MRE conform more closely to the federal rules restyle. No substantive changes were made. Rather, the subcommittee applied principles of restyling applied by the federal panels so as to make our rules clearer, easier to understand, and better organized for clarity.
You can read them and judge for yourself. My opinion is that this restyling will be a major improvement over what we have now, and will aid practitioners and judges in applying the MRE.
Asst. Atty. General Ed Snyder and MCLaw prof. Matt Steffey did most of the heavy lifting, and other subcommittee members assisted.
The Rules Advisory Committee, of which I am a member, has some other big projects in the pipeline. Stay tuned.
Directed Verdict vs. Involuntary Dismissal
February 2, 2016 § 1 Comment
After the plaintiff or petitioner has rested in a chancery court bench trial, the defendant may move to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff or petitioner has proven no right to relief. That is an involuntary dismissal, pursuant to MRCP 41(b), commonly referred to as a “41(b) motion.”
In a jury trial, a party may move for a directed verdict at the close of the other party’s case. That is a motion for directed verdict per MRCP 50(a).
The two are entirely different creatures. A 41(b) motion has no place in a jury trial, and a motion for directed verdict has no place in a bench trial.
The distinction was noted in the recent COA case, Carlson v. Brabham, handed down January 19, 2016. Judge Griffis explained:
¶10. “In a non-jury trial, such as this case, the appropriate motion is not a motion for [a] directed verdict pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 50; instead, the correct motion is a motion for [an] involuntary dismissal pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” Partlow v. McDonald, 877 So. 2d 414, 416 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (citation omitted) (citing Buelow v. Glidewell, 757 So. 2d 216, 220 (¶12) (Miss. 2000)). In this case, Brabham filed a Rule 50 motion for a directed verdict, rather than a Rule 41(b) involuntary-dismissal motion.
¶11. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that in situations such as this, an appellate court must:
[C]onsider th[e] appeal based on the correct standard of review, which under Rule 41(b) is different than the standard of review applicable to a motion for a directed verdict under Rule 50. In considering a motion for [an] involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b), the trial court should consider the evidence fairly, as distinguished from in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and the [trial court] should dismiss the case if it would find for the defendant. On appeal, [an appellate court] must apply the substantial evidence/manifest error standard to an appeal of a grant or denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to [Rule 41(b)].
Id. at 416-17 (¶7) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (citing Miss. Real Estate Comm’n v. Geico Fin. Servs. Inc., 602 So. 2d 1155, 1156 n.1 (Miss. 1992)).
As I have pointed out here before, if you proceed under the wrong rule in chancery, you are inviting either of two unappetizing results: (a) the chancellor may overrule your motion because there is no such thing as directed verdict in a chancery bench trial; or (b) the chancellor may apply the wrong standard to the proof, and you could find yourself boomeranged back to chancery on a remand that you created by your own inattention to the distinction.
No More Disconnect
October 27, 2015 § Leave a comment
You’ve read here in the past about the disconnect between MRCP 32 and MRE 802.
MRCP 32 (a)(3)(B) says that the deposition of a physician may be taken and introduced into evidence, presumably to avoid the necessity of dragging him or her away from patients to testify in court.
A deposition standing alone, however, is hearsay, so we need to look to the MRE to see how we can qualify it as an exception, if we can.
Among the exceptions enumerated in MRE 802 for unavailable witnesses, there is none for physicians.
Since there is a conflict — or disconnect — between the MRCP and the MRE, the MRE prevails, because MRE 1103 provides: “All evidentiary rules, whether provided by statute, court decision or court rule, which are inconsistent with the [MRE] are hereby repealed.”
Last Thursday the MSSC announced that it adopted the Rules Advisory Committee’s recommendation to cure the problem. You can read the rule and comment changes at this link. As I’ve said before, this discrepancy between the new rules has tripped up lawyers in litigation, and could trip you up, too, if you weren’t aware. This fix should eliminate this pitfall.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 