A Publication Hiccup
February 3, 2015 § 2 Comments
Last week the Meridian Star newspaper failed to publish legal notices scheduled for Tuesday, apparently by oversight. The paper called the lawyers who had had items scheduled and offered to republish any way the lawyers directed.
This caused some heart palpitations that influenced two lawyers to seek out my position on the matter, since estates assigned to me were affected. Each were running second and third publications. They had directed the paper to publish on three consecutive Tuesdays, and were concerned about the variation in days.
Before getting to a response, let’s look at the two most commonly invoked provisions on point:
- MCA 91-7-145(2) states that notice to creditors in an estate, conservatorship, or guardianship ” … shall be published for three consecutive weeks.” The requirement clearly is that the publication be made once in each of three consecutive weeks. The day is immaterial.
- MRCP 4((a)(4)(b) for process by publication is even clearer. It specifically provides that ” … publication of said summons shall be made once in each week during three consecutive weeks …” Again, the specific day of the week is immaterial.
So the answer, simply, is that so long as the paper publishes your notice or process one time in each of three consecutive weeks, regardless of the days when the notices are published, you have met the requirement of the statute and the rule.
There are other notice statutes. When you must comply with one, follow the express language of the statute.
Sometimes we get caught up in old habits, like telling the clerk at the paper to “Run this the next three Wednesdays …” and that’s how we always do it because that’s how we’ve always done it. But it’s the specific language of the statute or rule that controls, not force of habit.
Findings on a Rule 60 Motion
December 17, 2014 § 4 Comments
Aside from the remarkable fact that the December 9, 2014, COA case of Pride v. Pride involved twelve (12) pro se appellees, the decision also makes the notable point that findings of fact and conclusions of law are not necessarily required in the court’s ruling on a R60 motion.
This is a partition case involving 150 acres, more or less, in which siblings disagreed over the division. The chancellor ordered that a house and one acre be sold at auction, and six years later two brothers filed a R60 motion for relief from judgment, which the chancellor denied. The brothers also asked the court for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, per R52(a), which the chancellor also denied. The brothers appealed.
The order for sale of the home had been the subject of a previous appeal, which was found to be without merit in Pride v. Pride, 60 So.3d 208 (Miss. App. 2011). The COA characterized the six-year after-the-fact R60 motion in this case as ” … nothing more than his unsupported assertion …” that he (one of the brothers, William) was entitled to some relief. He did not invoke any of the legitimate bases of R60, and he offered no evidence to support his claims. The court found no merit to his R60 argument.
As for his claim that the chancellor should have made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, Judge Roberts, for the majority, said this:
¶10. Next, William claims that the chancellor erred when he did not provide written findings of fact and conclusions of law related to the decision to deny the Rule 60(b) motion. Rule 52(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]n all actions tried upon the facts without a jury[,] the court may, and shall upon the request of any party to the suit or when required by these rules, find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and judgment shall be entered accordingly.” If a party requests findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the trial court does not enter them, an “appellate court must consider the effect of the trial court’s missed responsibility, and overwhelming evidence may be required as a condition for affirmance.” Bodne v. King, 835 So. 2d 52, 57 (¶15) (Miss. 2003). “Whe[n] . . . a case is hotly contested and the facts [are] greatly in dispute[,] and whe[n] there is any complexity involved therein, failure to make findings of ultimate fact and conclusions of law will generally be regarded as an abuse of discretion.” Tricon Metals & Servs. Inc. v. Topp, 516 So. 2d 236, 239 (Miss. 1987). However, a trial court is only obligated to enter requested findings of fact when an action has been “tried upon the facts without a jury.” Harmon v. Regions Bank, 961 So. 2d 693, 700 (¶24) (Miss. 2007).
¶11. The chancellor was not required to view the allegations in William’s Rule 60(b) motion as though they were true. William’s Rule 60(b) motion was not an action “tried upon the facts,” because it did not include anything but allegations, and no facts were ever presented. William fails to explain how the chancellor could possibly find any facts after he failed to present any. And the chancellor’s decision to deny William’s Rule 60(b) motion did not result in the entry of a judgment. Therefore, the chancellor was justified in summarily denying William’s request for written findings of fact and conclusions of law. It follows that we find that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion, and there is no merit to this issue.
The axis upon which the COA’s decision turned was the absence of any evidence upon which the court was asked to rule. In essence, the brother(s) were asking the court for a do-over on their already-lost position.
One way to approach the rules is through a literal reading and rigid application: the rule says it, so do it. The better approach, to me, is to consider what is to be accomplished and why. Here, findings of fact and conclusions of law would be nothing more than a rehash of what had been done before, since the brothers presented nothing new. It would have been an empty exercise that might have planted the possibility of error in the record, which may be just what they had in mind to further delay this already-lengthy litigation. As MRCP 1 says, “These rules shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”
In the COA’s recitation of the case’s history, the quotes from Pride, supra, repeatedly refer to the William’s 2006 motion for a JNOV (directed verdict) as to the court’s order for a partition in kind. <SIGH> It’s a lamentable subject I posted about here recently.
Affirmative Defenses in Divorces
December 9, 2014 § Leave a comment
MRCP 8(c) requires that you plead in your responsive pleadings any matters that constitute “an avoidance or affirmative defense.” Specifically listed in the body of the rule are matters such as statute of limitations, accord and satisfaction, res judicata, etc.
Some of those listed defenses may be available in chancery matters such as contract disputes, land matters, and business dissolution, but they have no application in divorce, as I posted here before; nonetheless, some lawyers plead them in mechanical fashion, raising some humorous implications.
In a divorce case, there are some well-established affirmative defenses to grounds for divorcethat are not listed in R8, but that need to be pled in order to invoke them. They include:
- Prior knowledge. This applies where the spouse knew, for instance, that the wife was pregnant by another man when he married her, and yet married her anyway. Or that the wife knew before the marriage that the husband was a drug addict, and went ahead with the marriage despite the knowledge.
- Ratification and condonation. Two closely related concepts. A party gives up a ground by continuing to live with the other after knowledge of fault. These defenses have somewhat limited application in HCIT.
- Recrimination. An archaic defense no longer favored in our law, by which the proponent may be denied a divorce if he is guilty of a ground for divorce.
- Reformation. Applicable primarily in habitual drunkenness and drug use cases, where the accused party has quit abusing the substance.
- Connivance and collusion. Where the parties have conspired either for one to allow the other’s wrongful conduct so as to create a ground, or where the parties have agreed to perjure themselves to do so.
- Res judicata. Same parties and same issues in a previous matter that was reduced to a final judgment.
A comprehensive look at these and several lesser-known defenses is found in Professor Bell’s Mississippi Family Law, 2d Ed., § 4.03, pp. 99-104. If you practice any family law, and you don’t have a copy of her definitive treatise, you need to get one asap.
The clear and obvious thread running through the affirmative divorce defenses listed above is that they each are “an avoidance or affirmative defense” to a ground for divorce.
If you fail to plead affirmative defenses to grounds for divorce on behalf of your client, the only way you may present them at trial is if they are tried by consent. If, on the other hand, the other side objects, the judge will have to sustain the objection and exclude the testimony.
In the case of Lee v. Lee, decided by the COA on November 25, 2014, Nikki Lee charged her husband, Chris, with habitual drunkenness. He did not plead any affirmative defenses, but at trial he attempted to put on proof that Nikki knew when she married him of his drinking habits. Nikki objected, and the chancellor excluded the evidence, ruling that Chris had waived the defense by not pleading it affirmatively. Chris appealed.
Judge Griffis, for the unanimous court:
¶15. Condonation or antenuptial knowledge, as affirmative defenses, must be specifically pleaded or else the defenses are waived. Carambat v. Carambat, 72 So. 3d 505, 511 (¶27) (Miss. 2011) (citing M.R.C.P. 8(c); Ashburn v. Ashburn, 970 So. 2d 204, 212 (¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007)). “Affirmative defenses that are neither pled nor tried by consent are deemed waived.” Ashburn, 970 So. 2d at 212 (¶23) (quoting Goode v. Village of Woodgreen Homeowners, 662 So. 2d 1064, 1077 (Miss. 1995)).
¶16. Chris did not raise condonation or antenuptial knowledge as an affirmative defense in his pleadings. However, parties may try an affirmative defense through implied consent. Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure 15(b) provides:
When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by expressed or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon the motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure so to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues.
See also Lahmann v. Hallmon, 722 So. 2d 614, 691 (¶15) (Miss. 1998).
¶17. In his order, the chancellor found that Chris had waived the affirmative defense of condonation, because he did not plead it as an affirmative defense. The chancellor ruled:
“Chris did not plead condonation as a defense in his pleadings. Therefore, to the extent that Chris may have been attempting to raise a defense of condonation, the Court finds that this defense has been waived.” The chancellor did not address a defense of antenuptial knowledge or if the parties tried condonation by express or implied consent.
¶18. From the record, there is no indication the parties agreed to try condonation or antenuptial knowledge by express consent. Therefore, the question remains whether the parties tried the issue through implied consent. While issues not raised in the pleadings may be tried by implied consent, the party relying on implied consent for an issue must demonstrate certain requirements.
¶19. First, in order to find the parties tried the issue by implied consent, this Court must determine if the parties knew “‘that a new issue was being litigated at trial.’” Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So. 2d 806, 814 (¶32) (Miss. 2003) (quoting Setser v. Piazza, 644 So. 2d 1211, 1217 (Miss. 1994)). Further, this Court will not find implied consent “where the ‘questions asked or the evidence presented at trial are relevant to the issues actually raised in the pleadings.’” Id. (citation omitted).
The court went on to analyze the record, and concluded that the issues had not been tried by implied consent, and the chancellor’s ruling was affirmed.
Next time you represent a Chris in a case similar to this, be sure to assert in your responsive pleading every matter you feel may raise a legitimate affirmative defense. I say legitimate because it seriously detracts from your credibility to plead things like accord and satisfaction, or assumption of risk, or injury by fellow servant in your answer to a divorce complaint. But it makes perfect sense to spell out with whatever label you apply that the other party had pre-marriage knowledge, or that he condoned the conduct, or any other matter that legitimately constitutes “an avoidance or affirmative defense.” You are not limited to the classic defenses, but the matter must be an actual, arguable defense.
If you represent a Nikki, object vociferously to any attempt to put on proof of unpled defenses. Protect your record. In this case, Nikki’s attorney protected her record, and the outcome was favorable to Nikki.
The Judge as Grand Inquisitor
December 8, 2014 § 1 Comment
Some judges sit through a trial impassively, leaving counsel to wonder whether hizzoner is paying any attention at all. Other judges take an active part, hurling questions like shrapnel through the courtroom. Still other judges fit somewhere in between the two extremes.
It’s a phenomenon I’ve posted about before here and here.
In the COA case SKL Investments v. Hardin and Torrence, decided November 18, 2014, the appellant charged that the chancellor erred when he “continually mischaracterized testimony [and] interrupted and veraciously ‘crossed’ [SKL’s] witnesses while protecting other witnesses in a manner that hindered [SKL’s] development of its case[.]” [My emphasis] I will leave it up to the reader to look up the definition of ‘veraciously.’
So, did the learned chancellor cross a line in his interrogation in this case? No, said the court, in an opinion penned by Judge Irving:
¶16. … While the record reveals that the chancery court interrogated witnesses and even sometimes interrupted witnesses as they testified, a contextual reading of the record also reveals that the chancery court did not “overstep[ ] its judicial authority” as SKL now claims.
¶17. The chancery court was within its right to “interrogate witnesses, whether called by itself or by a party.” Powell v. Ayars, 792 So. 2d 240, 248 (¶29) (Miss. 2001); see also M.R.E. 614(b). Certainly, it would have been “‘grounds for reversal if the [chancery court had] abuse[d] the authority to call or question a witness[,] abandoning [its] impartial position as a judge and assuming an adversarial role.’” Copeland v. Copeland, 904 So. 2d 1066, 1074 (¶27) (Miss. 2004) (citing Powell, 792 So. 2d at 248 (¶29)). However, “there [was] no requirement for the [chancery court] solely to be a silent observer.” Copeland, 904 So. 2d at 1074 (¶28) (citation omitted). After reviewing the record, we find that the chancery court did not abuse its discretion in its examination of the witnesses. This issue is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm.
There is the oft-cited apocryphal tale of the chancellor who interrupted and took over questioning of a witness, only to be interrupted in turn by counsel, who pleaded, “Judge, I don’t mind you questioning the witness, but please don’t lose the case for me.”
Another point: if you’re going to accuse the judge of going overboard, at least use an adverb that fits the conduct.
Divorce Defendant in Default
December 4, 2014 § Leave a comment
Larry Bolivar filed for divorce from his wife, Teresa, on February 19, 2013. She was served with process on March 21, 2013. The R4 process was in the usual form that included the admonishment to file an answer within 30 days, or the relief requested could be granted.
On May 8, 2013, Teresa had filed no response to the divorce complaint, and Larry appeared in court and presented his case. The chancellor granted him a divorce from her.
In June, 2013, Teresa filed a motion to set aside the divorce, an answer denying the allegations of the complaint, and a counterclaim for divorce. In her motion to set aside the divorce, she complained that she had not been properly served with a summons or notice of hearing for the May 8, 2013, proceeding.
At the hearing on her motion to set aside the divorce judgment, Teresa acknowledged that she had been served with process on the complaint, and the judge found on that point that she had been served with process. As to her argument that she should have been given notice of the May hearing, the chancellor denied the motion on the basis that her failure to file an answer precluded her from asserting that claim. Teresa appealed.
On appeal, Teresa raised for the first time the issue whether Larry should have had her declared to be in default per MRCP 55 before proceeding against her.
In the case of Bolivar v. Bolivar, decided November 25, 2014, the COA affirmed the chancellor’s rulings. Judge Ishee wrote the opinion for the court.
On the issue of whether Teresa was entitled to notice, pursuant to MRCP 5, of the May hearing, the court said this:
¶11. Rule 5(a), in pertinent part, provides that “every written notice . . . shall be served upon each of the parties.” Nonetheless, Rule 5(a) also states that “[n]o service need be made on parties in default for failure to appear[.]” At the hearing regarding Teresa’s motion to set aside the divorce judgment, Teresa testified that she was served properly with process. Although she contends that she had obtained an attorney whom she believed was handling her case, the record does not reflect that any action was taken on her behalf in the thirty days following her receipt of the summons. As such, she was in default for failing to answer or appear. Nonetheless, Teresa argues that she was not properly declared in default pursuant to Rule 55.
As to whether she was properly declared in default per MRCP 55:
¶12. Rule 55 governs default judgments, and provides that when a party “has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter his default.” M.R.C.P. 55(a). However, “[i]f the party against whom judgment by default is sought has appeared in the action, he [or his representative] shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment at least three days prior to the hearing of such application[.]” M.R.C.P. 55(b). Teresa contends that Larry should have applied for an entry of default with the chancery clerk or applied for a default judgment in the chancery court. She maintains that his failure to declare her in default meant that she was not in default and his duty to serve her notice remained intact. As such, she argues that the judgment in his favor is void. We disagree.
¶13. This rule is “not directly applicable” to divorce proceedings. Stinson v. Stinson, 738 So. 2d 1259, 1262 (¶12) (Miss. 1999). Specifically, the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that a judgment entered in an action for divorce following a defendant’s failure to answer is “a special kind of default judgment.” Id. at 1263 (¶13) (quoting Mayoza v. Mayoza, 526 So. 2d 547, 548 (Miss. 1988)). A defendant’s failure to answer does not drag a divorce case to a halt. Instead, the plaintiff must, at a hearing, prove the allegations that support the receipt of a divorce. If that is done, then the chancellor has authority to grant the divorce despite the absence of the defendant. Id. at (¶15). This reasoning is supported by Rule 55(e), which provides that “unless the claimant establishes his claim or rights to relief by evidence,” a default judgment will not be entered in a suit for divorce. “Furthermore, a divorce will not be granted on the uncorroborated testimony of the claimant.” Lindsey v. Lindsey, 818 So. 2d 1191, 1194 (¶13) (Miss. 2002).
¶14. Since Teresa failed to answer or appear, we find that she was in default and not owed notice of the divorce hearing. Further, after a review of the record, we find that Larry established his claim to a judgment of divorce despite Teresa’s absence. Larry’s testimony, in addition to the corroborating testimony of Parker, clearly established a divorce on the grounds of desertion. As such, we find this issue is without merit.
Note that if the defendant does enter a timely appearance, and then stops participating, you must give the defendant notice of further proceedings per R5.
Directed Verdict vs. Involuntary Dismissal
December 3, 2014 § 4 Comments
Juries render verdicts. Judges in bench trials render judgments.
Thus, the proper motion after the plaintiff has rested in a jury trial is a motion for a directed verdict, per MRCP 50(a).
In a bench trial, which includes 99.9% of chancery matters, the proper motion is one for an involuntary dismissal, per MRCP 41(b), which states:
… After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court may then render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence …
In the case of SKL Investments v. Hardin and Torrence, handed down November 18, 2014, the COA said this:
¶12. “[T]he appropriate motion in a case tried without a jury is not a motion for [a] directed verdict, but involuntary dismissal, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.” Gulfport-Biloxi Reg’l Airport Auth. v. Montclair Travel Agency Inc., 937 So. 2d 1000, 1004 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “When reviewing a dismissal under . . . Rule . . . 41(b), we will not overturn the decision of [the chancery court] if [its] findings are supported by substantial evidence unless [the chancery court] abused [its] discretion, was manifestly wrong, or applied an erroneous legal standard.” Jones v. Jones, 101 So. 3d 731, 732 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (citation omitted).
We discussed the different standards to be applied by the court in each of the two rules in a previous post. The distinction is substantial.
Legal nerd that I am, it irks me when I read a decision of the appellate court referring to a R41(b) motion in chancery court as one for a directed verdict. There are no verdicts in chancery court except in the relatively rare event of a jury trial — which now occurs only when one is requested in a will contest, and when the chancellor impanels an advisory jury (assuming that can still be done under the MRCP).
Likewise, you could conceivably lead an unsuspecting chancellor in a bench trial into error by casting your motion as one for a directed verdict. When the chancellor applies the proper legal standard to that motion, she is automatically in error, since it does not apply in bench trials.
Terminology can make a difference.
A Rule More Observed in the Breach
November 17, 2014 § 6 Comments
Just a friendly reminder that MRAP 25(b) states in part:
“In all cases a copy of any brief on the merits shall be served on the judge who presided at the trial …”
What it Means When You Sign a Pleading
November 13, 2014 § Leave a comment
We talked Monday about what can happen when one knowingly files a false pleading.
Aside from the fact that it’s patently unethical to do so, there is a specific requirement in the MRCP about a lawyer’s representations to the court via her pleadings. It’s in R11(a), which states in part:
Every pleading or motion of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record … The signature of an attorney shall constitute a certificate that the attorney has read the pleading or motion; that to the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay …
That’s pretty straightforward. You have to have read the pleading, and if you fail to do that, you are still responsible for its contents since you certified to the court that you are aware of what is in it. You have to do more than take your client’s word for it that there is good ground to support the claims, because you are certifying to the court that you have made sufficient inquiry to determine that it is, indeed, a meritorious claim. And you can never file an unmeritorious pleading just to hold things up while your client makes good his escape or otherwise arranges his affairs to his advantage.
If the court finds that you have not signed pleadings or signed them with intent to defeat the purpose of the rule, you are subject to the sanctions in R11(b), including discipline, reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees. The sanctions extend both to the client and to the lawyer.
Carelessness is no excuse. The rule requires that you put some thought and attention into the pleadings that you file.
A Case for Sanctions
November 10, 2014 § 3 Comments
Louis Pannagl had made a will in 2001. In April, 2011, he contacted Kellems, a lawyer, about changes he wanted to be made in his will. He sent Kellems handwritten notes with the changes, including a document that included the language, “The Will of April 23rd 2011 … has been destroyed and March 23, 1993 [sic].” It is undisputed that the notes were in Louis’s handwriting.
Louis died on June 8, 2011, and Louis’s widow, Donis, contacted one of Louis’s lawyers, who sent her the notes described above. Donis gave the notes to her son, David Lambert, Louis’s step-son, who read them and passed them on to Holmes, an attorney he had hired to open Louis’s estate. On August 19, 2011, a sworn petition was filed, with Louis’s will attached, alleging that the original had been lost and that the will had not been destroyed by Louis with intent to revoke it. The handwritten notes were not attached to the petition.
Both of Louis’s biological son, Curt, and daughter, Sammi, filed contests to probate of the will. It was not until around a year after the petition had been filed that they found out, in the course of discovery, about the handwritten notes revoking the prior will(s). Sammi filed for summary judgment and sanctions under MRCP 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act. The chancellor granted summary judgment, but declined to impose sanctions.
Sammi and Curt appealed the denial of sanctions.
In the case of Estate of Pannagl: Pannagl and Spence v. Lambert and Holmes, the COA on November 4, 2014, reversed. Since this case makes some important points about sanctionable behavior and the applicable law, I am quoting at length:
¶7. In this appeal, Curt contends that Lambert’s failure to include the document in this petition constituted fraud; thus, the chancellor erred in failing to award sanctions. Curt argues that Lambert, having read the handwritten document prior to filing his petition, knew the will had been destroyed with an intent to revoke it and, therefore, had no hope of success. According to Curt, the action was frivolous and constituted a fraud on the court because Lambert withheld the document and filed a sworn petition alleging that the original will was lost and not destroyed by Louis with the intent to revoke it.
¶8. Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) states, in pertinent part:
If any party files a motion or pleading which, in the opinion of the court, is frivolous or is filed for the purpose of harassment or delay, the court may order such a party, or his attorney, or both, to pay to the opposing party or parties the reasonable expenses incurred by such other parties and by their attorneys, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
M.R.C.P. 11(b). The Litigation Accountability Act states, in pertinent part:
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, in any civil action commenced or appealed in any court of record in this state, the court shall award, as part of its judgment and in addition to any other costs otherwise assessed, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs against any party or attorney if the court, upon the motion of any party or on its own motion, finds that an attorney or party brought an action, or asserted any claim or defense, that is without substantial justification . . . .
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-55-5(1) (Rev. 2012). The phrase “without substantial justification” is defined by the Act as a filing that is “frivolous, groundless in fact or in law, or vexatious, as determined by the court.” Miss. Code Ann. § 11-55-3(a) (Rev. 2012). “The term ‘frivolous’ as used in this section takes the same definition as it does under Rule 11: a claim or defense made ‘without hope of success.’” In re Spencer, 985 So. 2d at 338 (¶26) (quotations omitted). “A plaintiff’s belief alone will not garner a ‘hope of success’ where a claim has no basis in fact.” Foster v. Ross, 804 So. 2d 1018, 1024 (¶21) (Miss. 2002) (quotations omitted). Whether a party has any “hope of success” is an objective standard to be analyzed from the vantage point of a reasonable plaintiff at the time the complaint was filed. Tricon Metals & Servs. Inc. v. Topp, 537 So. 2d 1331, 1335 (Miss. 1989).
¶9. The chancellor found the following: (1) it was unclear whether the will had been revoked or if Louis merely contemplated doing so; (2) more information was required to determine Louis’s intent; (3) the handwritten document was insufficient to put a proponent of a will having minor children as beneficiaries on notice that it had been revoked; (4) the handwritten document was not subscribed, but merely signed at the top, and the various copies of the document contained different-color ink; and (5) tendering a copy of Louis’s will was not so egregious as to warrant the imposition of sanctions against Lambert and Holmes.
¶10. The Mississippi Supreme Court has found that a misrepresentation of pertinent facts to a chancellor, who entered an order based on the misrepresentations, was a violation of the Litigation Accountability Act and Rule 11 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and warranted sanctions. In re Estate of Ladner, 909 So. 2d 1051, 1056 (¶17) (Miss. 2004). In that case, an executor and his attorney failed to inform the court of the testator’s brother’s claim to ownership of cattle located on the brother’s land prior to obtaining a court order to seize the cattle. Id. at 1055-56 (¶¶15-16). In addition, this Court has found that a verified creditor’s notice of claim, filed by the counsel of a creditor of potential heirs of a decedent’s estate and containing a misrepresentation of pertinent facts, was frivolous. In re Necaise, 126 So. 3d 49, 57 (¶30) (Miss. App. Ct. 2013). This Court found that the misrepresentation caused the estate to incur unnecessary attorney’s fees in having to respond to those filings and thus warranted sanctions under Rule 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act. Id.
¶11. In this case, Lambert failed to disclose the existence of the handwritten document when he filed his petition. A reasonable person in Lambert’s position, with Lambert’s knowledge, would have no hope of success in rebutting the presumption that Louis’s will had been lost and not destroyed. Lambert admitted that, when he filed his petition, he had received and read the documents attached to Carrigee’s letter, which included the handwritten document. This letter, with attachments, was later given to Holmes prior to filing this action. In that document, Louis listed a myriad of changes he wanted to make to his will. At the bottom of the first column of the two-column document, he wrote: “The will of April 23rd 2001 Brookhaven/Brady Kellems has been destroyed.” The words “and March 23, 1993,” were written in a different-color ink on Kellems’s copy. The document was signed by Louis, and Donis testified that the document was in his handwriting. Lambert searched for a will, but could not find one. The file folder in Louis’s office entitled “will” was empty.
¶12. From this document, it is clear that Louis wanted to make changes to his will and that he intended to revoke all prior wills. Even though Louis signed this document at the top of the page, Donis testified that it was his handwriting. When taken in context, the statement that: “The will of April 23rd 2001 Brookhaven/Brady Kellems has been destroyed,” effectively put Lambert and his attorney on notice that Louis destroyed his will with the intent to revoke it. This is evidenced by Lambert’s attempt to convert the proceedings to that of intestate succession. On the same day that the court ruled on a motion to compel Kellems to give his deposition, and prior to any other depositions being taken, Lambert filed a motion to amend his petition. He sought a declaration that Louis had died intestate and asked the court to appoint Donis the administrator. The handwritten document had not yet come to light, and judging from the timing of the motion’s filing, Holmes knew that once it did, there would be no hope of success in overcoming the presumption. In the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Holmes admitted that he filed that motion because he did not think he could overcome the presumption that Louis’s will had been lost and not destroyed.
¶13. The chancellor did not consider the fact of nondisclosure to be important when making her decision about whether to award sanctions. But the fact remains that the nondisclosure was a misrepresentation, making the petition to probate the will frivolous in light of the evidence. The chancellor abused her discretion in not considering Lambert’s nondisclosure in determining the frivolity of the action. Curt incurred unnecessary expense in contesting the probate of this will, only to uncover a document that Lambert withheld for almost a year and a half and that would later serve as the basis for summary judgment.
¶14. Finding that the chancellor abused her discretion in deciding not to award sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act, we reverse and remand for a determination of attorney’s fees and costs.
So the shortcoming here was the failure to disclose the handwritten notes. Hindsight, which is always high-def, tells us that the better practice would have been to disclose the notes and leave it up to the chancellor, as finder of fact, to interpret them. By not disclosing the notes, Lambert and counsel gave the reasonable impression that they were trying to hide something to change a possible adverse outcome. That’s always a recipe for sanctions and even discipline.
Publishing for Unknown Heirs
November 5, 2014 § 1 Comment
Every district I know of requires publication for unknown heirs in administrations (intestate estates). There are times, also, when you need to establish who the heirs are for other reasons.
In those type cases you have to publish process to the unknown heirs. I have seen lawyers attempt it in a variety of ways, but there is only one right way to do it.
It’s spelled out in MRCP 4(c)(4)(D), which provides, in pertinent part:
When unknown heirs are made parties defendant in any proceeding in chancery court, upon affidavit that the names of such heirs are unknown, the plaintiff may have publication of summons for them, and such proceedings shall be thereupon in all respects as in the case of a nonresident defendant. …
R81(d)(1) requires 30 days’ notice. R81(d)(5) requires that the defendant(s) be summoned to appear and defend at a specific time and place. R81(d)(4) provides that no answer is required. R81(d)(3) states that the matter shall not be taken as confessed.
So here it is, step by step:
1. Prepare a petition stating the names of the known heirs, and stating that there are no other known heirs. If the petition is sworn, you can skip step 2.
2. Have the administrator or some other person(s) with knowledge state in an affidavit that the only known heirs are named in the petition, and that there are no other known heirs. File the affidavit.
3. Prepare a summons to the unknown heirs returnable to a day and time certain more than thirty days from the date of first publication.
4. Publish the summons in a newspaper published in the county of the action or, if there is no newspaper published there, post it on the door of the county courthouse and ” … published as above provided in a newspaper in an adjoining county or at the seat of government of the state.” The publication is once a week for three consecutive weeks (R4(c)(4)(B)).
5. On the return day, appear at the appointed time and have the case called. You can proceed in the manner that the chancellor directs. Since the rule provides that the matter may not be taken as confessed, most chancellors require testimony, although some will rely on the affidavit, per R78.
6. If the case can not be heard on the return day, for whatever reason, have an order entered on that same day, continuing the case to a future date (R81(d)(5)). And every subsequent continuance order must be signed by the chancellor on the day to which the case was continued. If you fail to do this, you will have to reissue process.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 