DRINKING YOUR OWN TOXIC COCKTAIL
January 28, 2013 § Leave a comment
When you pursue litigation that you know is not meritorious, and you learn in discovery that you have no possible hope of prevailing, and you file an improper motion for recusal with false allegations against the court, you have concocted a toxic cocktail that, when consumed, will burn a deep hole in your pocketbook by way of sanctions. Need proof?
Consider the case of Sullivan and Stubbs v. Maddox, decided by the COA on January 22, 2013.
Sullivan, represented by his attorney, Stubbs (both collectively referred to as “Sullivan” in the COA opinion), filed suit in 2005 to confirm and quiet title to some property, based on a claim of adverse possession. His suit was prompted by the Maddoxes’ claim to the same property. When he initiated the suit, he obtained an injunction to keep the Maddoxes off of the property.
The suit apparently languished for years.
In April, 2011, the Maddoxes filed a motion for summary judgment taking the position that title to the property was vested in the United States, and that neither Sullivan nor Maddox had any claim to it by adverse possession because federal law prohibits adverse possession against the federal government.
Five days later Sullivan filed a motion asking the chancellor to recuse himself. The Maddoxes responded that the motion was untimely filed and was fatally defective for failure to include an affidavit setting forth the factual basis, both as set out in UCCR 1.11.
On May 3, 2011, the parties appeared before the court for a hearing on both motions, and the recusal motion was taken up first. Sullivan took the position that the chancellor should recuse because one of the Maddoxes’ attorneys had represented the judge’s court administrator’s husband in a criminal matter. The judge acknowledged the fact, as well as that Stubbs had represented the court administrator in a divorce action. He rejected both bases as causes to recuse, because neither would cause a reasonable person, knowing the pertinent facts, to doubt the court’s impartiality. The judge also found that the recusal motion failed to comply with UCCR 1.11 for the reasons assigned by the Maddoxes.
In the course of presenting the motion, Stubbs attempted to make a proffer alleging an unreported campaign contribution to the chancellor. The charge had not been included in the motion to recuse, and there was no affidavit to support it.
The court went on to hear the motion for summary judgment. In his ruling, the judge granted summary judgment in favor of the Maddoxes. He stated in his opinion that Stubbs had disclosed to the court that he had warned Sullivan before he filed the suit that it was a weak case, that there was no government survey or patent out of the US to support his claim, and that there was no color of title. The judge also found that the unsubstantiated accusation against him was made as a threat by counsel, and he set a hearing date for possible sanctions.
The Maddoxes filed a motion for sanctions under MRCP 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act. Based on all of the proceedings to that point, as well as the record made on the motion, the chancellor assessed sanctions against Sullivan and Stubbs jointly, in the amount of $42,922.91. As the COA opinion, by Judge Carlton, stated at ¶11:
In sanctioning Sullivan and Stubbs, the chancellor specifically found that the following actions demonstrated frivolous pleadings had been filed and frivolous arguments had been made for the purposes of harassment and delay, without substantial justification, and with disrespect for the integrity of the court: (1) Stubbs’s admission that before commencement of the action he had advised Sullivan of the weakness of his claim to confirm and quiet title; (2) Sullivan and Stubbs’s failure to abandon the claim after their expert witness testified in his deposition that the United States had issued no patent for the subject property; (3) Sullivan and Stubbs’s failure to make any effort to determine the validity of the claim before raising it; and (4) the filing of an improper motion for recusal and false allegations against the court. The chancellor held that these various actions constituted a willful violation of Rule 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act, as well as Rule 8.2(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (prohibiting a lawyer from making a statement that he knows to be false or making a statement with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge).
The COA affirmed the chancellor on all points.
The serious lesson to take from this case is that Rule 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act have bite. So do the Rules of Professional Conduct. MRCP 11 specifically states that an attorney’s signature on a pleading (and that includes not only initial complaints, but also all motions) “” … constitutes a certificate that … to the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it, and it is not interposed for delay,” and goes on to provide for sanctions for its enforcement.
When in the course of a hearing you recklessly throw out unsubstantiated charges against the court, you are giving the judge no alterntive but to sanction you. To do otherwise the chancellor would be derelict in her duty to preserve the dignity and respect of the court, as provided in UCCR 1.01.
When you learn in the course of a lawsuit that it is not meritorious, and that there is no hope of prevailing, counsel your client to dismiss it. If your client will not cooperate, file a motion to withdraw, and do not put it off, because the judge can deny your motion if it would delay the trial, and you would then be at risk for sharing your client’s sanctions, if the court assesses them.
Don’t put yourself in a position where you have to drink that toxic cocktail that you yourself concocted.
THE QUIRKS OF RENUNCIATION
January 14, 2013 § 1 Comment
The COA case of Estate of Weill v. Weill, decided November 6, 2012, is a reminder of several quirks involved in renunciation of wills.
- MCA 91-5-27 provides that if the decedent made no provision for a surviving spouse, the survivor has a right to share in the estate of the decedent as in the case where there is an unsatisfactory provision (see below), and no formal act of renunciation is necessary. Tillman v. Williams, 403 SO.2d 880, 881 (Miss. 1981).
- In Weill, the decedent had left his surving spouse ” … my seven beloved dogs to care for. She is to be offered $25,000 from my assets to effect the transfer of my dogs to her home …” The chancellor and the COA rejected the appellant’s argument that the bequest was really for the benefit of the dogs, noting that the cash bequest was to her and not for benefit of the canines. Thus, since there was a bequest, she could not avail herself of MCA 91-5-27.
- MCA 91-5-25 provides that if the decedent ” … does not make satisfactory provision …” for the spouse (the statute uses the word “wife”), then the spouse may renounce the will by filing a formal notice to the effect of the language suggested in the statute, and the spouse will thereupon be entitled to share in the estate to the extent set out in the statute. The renunciation must be filed within 90 days of the date of the admission of the will to probate.
- In addressing one of the appellant’s arguments, the COA noted that a renunciation filed in the stautory form before probate of the will has been found to be adequate. Gettis v. McAllister, 411 So.2d 770 (Miss. 1982).
- In Weill, although the attorney for the widow had made it known to the court and counsel opposite that the widow intended to file a renunciation, no formal renunciation was filed within the 90 days. The chancellor and the COA rejected the claim that an oral statement of intent to renounce complied with the statute.
When it comes to probate matters, the bottom line is that the requirements are all statutory, which means that they must be strictly construed and followed. Do not expect a chancellor or appellate court to fudge requirements for you because you “came close.” The fact is that close gets you no cigar. You have to be right on target. What is required is right there in the law, in black and white. If you don’t read the law in advance, you have no one to blame but yourself when things go embarrassingly and expensively wrong.
WHERE DID MISSISSIPPI’S CHANCERY COURTS COME FROM?
December 6, 2012 § 1 Comment
Note: Since neither of the law schools in Mississippi require their students to study chancery courts and equity jurisdiction as a discrete subject, I thought it would be useful and informative to set out a brief history of how we came to have separate chancery courts in our state, as a starting point for understanding how our courts have developed separate practices and procedure.
When the Mississippi Territory was created in 1798, there was influx of settlers into the region around Natchez, where significant wealth began to be accumulated. As land was developed and plantations were established, there was a growing need for legal professionals to research and litigate land claims, and to advise the growing business community.
Lawyers came to the new territory from Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas. They brought with them the knowledge of their own legal systems based on English jurisprudence and judicial organization. The first chancery courts in the colonies had been established in Maryland, and that state’s equity system was regarded as being one of the most advanced. The courts in the Atlantic states administered equity as had the chancery courts of England.
The immigrant attorneys influenced the territorial legislature, and the first territorial courts established were the Superior Courts, which had both legal and equitable jurisdiction. Interestingly, the legislation establishing those courts provided that they “may ordain and establish all necessary rules for the orderly conducting of business in equity,” meaning that the courts and not the lawmakers made the rules of procedure.
Mississippi achieved statehood in 1817, and the first state constitution authorized the legislature to establish a separate court of chancery. From the inception of the State of Mississippi, then, chancery court has been a constitutional court. Nonetheless, it was several years before the legislature acted on its authority. In 1821, at the urging of Virginia native George Poindexter, the legislature did establish the separate superior court of chancery.
Supreme Court Justice Joshua G. Clarke (for whom Clarke County is named) was selected as the state’s first chancellor. At the time, the position of chancellor was appointed, and was regarded as preferable to a seat on the Supreme Court.
Practice in chancery then was vastly different from what it is now. There was one chancellor, who sat at the seat of government and one or two additional places, and to whom the cases were brought. Trials were the exception. Instead, testimony was presented by deposition. The “Learned Chancellor” examined the facts presented in the light of any applicable precedent (the case law of New York and England were the primary authorities until Mississippi developed its own substantial body of law), and rendered a scholarly and, hopefully, wise decision, which could then be appealed to the supreme court.
The constitution adopted in 1832 made the position of chancellor an elected one, and it is believed that Mississippi’s were the first elected chancery judges. That constitution provided for separate courts of equity, but also authorized the legislature to give circuit courts concurrent equity jurisdiction “in all cases where the amount or thing in controversy does not exceed $500; also all cases of divorce and for foreclosure of mortgages.” The provision for concurrent jurisdiction was made because it was burdensome for poorer litigants to have to travel to the locale of the chancery court.
To help alleviate the caseload, the position of Vice-Chancellor was created in 1842, and another was created in 1846. At that point, the three chancellors began riding what amounted to a circuit, holding court in different sections of the state, similar to our federal courts now.
By 1856, the business in chancery court had grown to such an extent that the constitution was amended in that year so that the circuit judges held chancery court in each county.
Up to 1868, probate matters had been entrusted to local “probate courts,” inferior to the chancery courts, which were staffed by lay persons who had no legal training or experience, and no judicial background. As a result, business was frequently mishandled, and the chancery courts were swamped with suits stemming from the inferior court actions. It was often said that the only issue when reviewing the action of a probate court was whether its actions were void or merely voidable.
As for practice and procedure, the principle established in territorial days that the chancellors would establish their own procedures continued in effect, but there was no central authority for the rules, and there was a confusing proliferation of procedural rules and practices that varied greatly from one chancellor to another. The resulting confusion gave rise to a call for uniformity among the courts.
Another source of dissatisfaction with the chancery system was that as the population grew there was an increasing demand for court time, but too few judges to meet the demand. Some called for more chancery judges, and others wanted to abolish the chancery courts and vest equity jurisdiction in the circuit courts, which were already in place serving every county.
In 1868, there was another constitutional convention formed due to Reconstruction. Its constitution once and for all established chancery court as a separate court, with chancellors sitting in districts across the state, comparable to already-established circuit court system. The concurrent jurisdiction arrangement with circuit court was terminated, as were the probate courts; the chancery courts with jurisdiction over the matters they fomerly handled.
In the wake of the 1868 constitution, the legislature began to address dissatisfaction with the patchwork of court procedures and rules by passing laws dictating procedures to the courts.
The provisions of the 1868 constitution for chancery carried over into the 1890 constitution, for the most part.
Over the years there were few changes in court legislation. In 1916, the legislature passed a bill requiring that the former method of taking testimony by deposition in chancery be abolished in favor of oral testimony.
In 1924, the legislature adopted the Chancery Practice Act, which settled once and for all, until 1981, that the legislature, and not the courts, would control the procedural and evidentiary rules of the courts.
_____________________________________
This information is distilled from Judge Griffith’s Mississippi Chancery Practice, 2nd Ed., 1950.
THE ROLE OF THE SUBSCRIBING WITNESS
December 4, 2012 § 1 Comment
In the MSSC decision in Estate of Holmes, decided November 29, 2012, there was a proceeding for solemn probate. The two subscribing witnesses were called to testify, and their testimony established that: they did not know they were witnessing a will; they that the testator did not request that they witness a will; and that they did not satisfy themselves that the testator was of sound and disposing mind when she executed the will. The MSSC reversed the chamncellor’s decision admitting the will, holding that the subscribing witnesses did not satisfy the requirement of “attesting” witnesses.
Justice Dickinson’s opinion states, beginning at ¶ 10:
Mississippi law empowers “[e]very person eighteen (18) years of age or older, being of sound and disposing mind” to make a will which, if not “wholly written and subscribed” by the testator, must be “attested by two (2) or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator or testatrix [MCA 91-5-1]. The attesting witnesses must meet four requirements: First, the testator must request them to attest the will [Green v. Pearson, 145 Miss. 23, 110 So. 862, 864 (1927)]; second, they must see the testator sign the will [Matter of Jefferson’s Will, 349 So.3d 1032, 1036 (Miss. 1977)]; third, they must know that the document is the testator’s last will and testament [Estate of Griffith v. Griffith, 20 So.2d 1190, 1194 (Miss. 2010)]; and finally, they must satisfy themselves that the testator is of sound and disposing mind and capable of making a will [Matter of Jefferson’s Will, Id.].
¶11. These formalities associated with attesting a will are important, not only as safeguards against fraud by substitution of a different will than the one signed by the testator, but also to make sure a person executing a will is of sound and disposing mind.
And this at ¶ 14: “One may not witness a will in ignorance.”
I would say that most of us who have ever prepared simple wills as a routine matter for clients have not paid heed to the exacting requirements that are imposed on subscribing witnesses by operation of the case law in this area. But, as this case illustrates, it is worth re-examining how you select and instruct your subscribing/attesting witnesses as to their duties, and, more importantly, how you document what it is that they are witnessing. By that latter point, I mean to suggest that you might want to scrutinize that subscribing witness affidavit form that is fossilized in your comouter and which you have been using for more than 35 years, to see whether it is stout enough to pass muster in a trial of this sort, and whether it would help jog the memory of the witness to the extent that the witness’s testimony would be helpful.
Justice Pierce’s dissent raises some good points about the prudence of requiring witnesses, some of whom performed their duties decades before, to have almost perfect recall of the events surrounding the subscription of the document. I know that I have been asked several times to recall events surrounding similar transactions, and I have found my memory murkily general and unhelpful, at best. Imagine a lay person who is not familiar with all of these legalities and their import being asked similar questions.
THE BENEFIT OF A WHOLESOME AND STABLE ENVIRONMENT
November 28, 2012 § Leave a comment
MCA 93-5-24(1)(e)(i) provides that, if the court finds both parents have abandoned or deserted a child, it may award physical and legal custody to ” … [t]he person in whose home the child has been living in a whoesome and stable environment.” And the case of Lucas v. Hendrix, 92 So.3d 699, 705-6 (Miss. App. 2012) says that once the chancellor has found that both parents have deserted the child, custody may be awarded per the statute without first addressing the Albright factors.
Those little gems are in ¶ 17 of the decision in Hamilton v. Houston, decided by the COA November 6, 2012.
In that case, the chancellor found that both of the natural parents had deserted the child. Once he made that finding, the chancellor did go through an Albright analysis, the result of which was to award custody of a minor child to the paternal grandparents over objection of the mother. The COA upheld the chancellor’s decision, and several points raised in Judge Maxwell’s opinion are ones you should file away for future use:
- Desertion involves forsaking a person to whom one is legally obligated, or forsaking or avoiding one’s duty to that person. In re Leverock & Hamby, 23 So.3d 424, 429-30 (Miss. 2009).
- Abandonment is relinquishment of a right or claim (¶ 17).
- A finding of either abandonment or desertion by clear and convincing evidence is enough to rebut the natural parent presumption. In re Smith, 97 So.3d 424, 429-30 (Miss. 2012).
- In this case, although both parents paid some support for the child, they both admitted that the money they paid was not sufficient to support him.
- An unusual feature of this case was that the grandparents, who were awarded custody, did not file their own pleadings, but merely joined in their son’s (father of the minor child) petition for custody. The COA held that prayer in the son’s petition that he be awarded custody was adequate to empower the judge to adjudicate the issue in any way that was in the best interest of the child.
The fact pattern in this case should be unhappily familiar to any lawyer who has done much family law in the past several years. It seems that grandparents are more frequently becoming surrogate parents, and chancellors are more often called upon in these cases to be arbiters of the child’s best interest.
It appears to me that these cases are trending toward giving more weight to the quality of the parental relationship and less to the quantity. As in this decision, a parent who, for instance, provides some financial support but forsakes the parental duties of emotional support, presence, attention, and other parenting responsibilities, is at risk for a finding of desertion.
CUSTODY WHEN THERE IS NO DIVORCE
November 27, 2012 § Leave a comment
In the COA case of Jones v. Jones, decided November 13, 2012, Carrie Jones filed for divorce against her husband, Donald, who in turn filed a counterclaim for divorce against her. The parties agreed to present the case in a bifurcated fashion, first presenting proof of grounds for divorce and letting the court adjudicate the divorce before proceeding to other issues.
Carrie presented her evidence, at the conclusion of which Donald moved for dismissal under MRCP 41(b). The chancellor ruled that Carrie had not met her burden of proof, and dismissed her complaint. Donald then dismissed his counterclaim. When Carrie asked to go forward on the remaining isssues of child custody and support, the chancellor refused on the basis that her complaint was dismissed, and there was nothing further to adjudicate.
Carrie appealed, raising several issues (she did not contest the denial of the divorce).
First, she claimed that the chancellor had a constitutional duty to protect the child, and that the court should have adjudicated custody even though the divorce complaint was dismissed. Judge Fair, writing for the majority, agreed that the chancery court has a duty to protect children, but disagreed that the duty extended to adjudicating custody in a situation such as this. He wrote:
This [constitutional] responsibility does not impose upon chancellors an affirmative duty to adjudicate custody for every dismissed divorce complaint.
¶6. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that a chancellor may provide for the custody of children after dismissing a complaint for divorce. See Waller v. Waller, 754 So. 2d 1181, 1183 (¶12) (Miss. 2000). “The court, however, is not required to make a decision regarding custody where it dismisses the petition for divorce.” Id. (citations omitted).
¶7. In domestic-relations matters, chancellors enjoy considerable discretion and are trusted to evaluate the specific facts of each case. See Harrell v. Harrell, 231 So. 2d 793, 797 (Miss. 1970). Here, the limited record contains no indication that either parent would be unfit or unsuitable for custody. We cannot say the chancellor abused his discretion by declining to adjudicate custody.
Second, she argued that the court should have dismissed only the divorce complaint and left standing her claim for custody. This, too, the court rejected:
¶10. Carrie characterizes her claims for custody and child support as independent actions cognizable under section 93-11-65 of the Mississippi Code Annotated (Supp. 2012). But our case law contradicts this interpretation. In Slaughter v. Slaughter, 869 So. 2d 386, 397 (¶33) (Miss. 2004), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a custody matter may not proceed under section 93-11-65 when a divorce is pending. Therefore, Carrie’s claims for custody and child support cannot properly be understood as independent issues. Mississippi Code Annotated section “93-5-23 provides for the child’s care and custody in a divorce situation and 93-11-65 . . . is an alternative[.]” Slaughter, 869 So. 2d at 396 (¶33).
[The opinion goes on to distinguish the holding in the modification case, Anderson v. Anderson, 961 So. 2d 55, 59-60 (¶¶8-10) (Miss. 2007)].
How do you avoid a result like Jones? It seems to me you could plead in counts, Count I being the claim for divorce, equitable distribution, a 93-5-24 claim for custody, etc., and Count II being the 93-11-65 child custody and support claim. By pleading in counts you are in my opinion filing what amounts to severable law suits. Under Slaughter, then, you would be barred from proceeding on Count II as long as Count I is pending. But if Count I is dismissed, you still have Count II to fall back on, and it would be viable at that point because the 93-5-24 claim is dismissed.
There is a caveat, however. The venue requirements for divorce and 93-11-65 are not identical. You may have venue for the divorce, but not for 93-11-65.
I’m not saying categorically that this is the answer to the problem because I have not researched the question beyond Jones and Slaughter. The tactic I am suggesting, however, was not employed in either of those cases, as far as I can tell from reading the opinions. Thus, my solution gives you an arguable basis to go forward on custody if you are stymied on grounds for divorce.
IS THERE AN INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TPR?
October 1, 2012 § 5 Comments
Termination of parental rights pursuant to MCA 93-15-103 has long been treated, at least in this chancery district, as an independent cause of action that may be invoked whenever the criteria of 93-15-103(3) are met.
The COA decision in LePori v. Welch (discussed here in a previous post dealing with other points), decided June 26, 2012, though, calls that theory into question.
In his opinion for the court, Judge Maxwell addresses the appellant’s argument that the chancellor failed to address the “substantial erosion” factor set out in 93-15-103(3)(f). He said, beginning in ¶5:
But the grounds for termination in section 93-15-103(3) are to be considered only when the circumstances of section 93-15-103(1) are met:
When a child has been removed from the home of its natural parents and cannot be returned to the home of his natural parents within a reasonable length of time because returning to the home would be damaging to the child or the parent is unable or unwilling to care for the child, relatives are not appropriate or are unavailable, and when adoption is in the best interest of the child, taking into account whether the adoption is needed to secure a stable placement for the child and the strength of the child’s bonds to his natural parents and the effect of future contacts between them, the grounds listed in subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall be considered as grounds for the termination of parental rights. The grounds may apply singly or in combination in any given case.
Miss. Code Ann. § 93-15-103(1).
¶6. It is clear from the plain language of section 93-15-103—as well as the cases that have applied this section—the concern of the statute is when a parent’s rights may be terminated in order for the child to be adopted. E.g., S.R.B.R. v. Harrison County Dep’t of Human Servs., 798 So. 2d 437, 445 (¶32) (Miss. 2001) … [Emphasis in original text]
The above language is not the actual holding of the case, but it is about as clear a statement that you will find interpreting the intent and purpose of 93-15-103(1), which is the threshold statute for TPR. What Judge Maxwell is saying, in my opinion, is that there is no cause of action for TPR that is independent of an adoption. TPR is done ” … in order for the child to be adopted … ,” in Judge Maxwell’s own words.
I wonder, though, what this language of the statute means in light of that interpretation: ” … and when adoption is in the best interest of the child, taking into account whether the adoption is needed to secure a stable placement for the child and the strength of the child’s bonds to his natural parents and the effect of future contacts between them …” What about where the court finds that adoption is not needed to secure a stable placement? Does that cancel out the TPR action if all the criteria are proven?
My emphatic answer is … I don’t know. What I do know is that nine judges of the COA joined in Judge Maxwell’s opinion, and that one concurred ” … in part and in the result without separate written opinion,” making it 99% unanimous. So the mind of the COA on the subject would appear to be clear.
I also know that this would appear to change the way we have done business in this district, and maybe in yours, too. Stay tuned for further developments.
BREAKING NEWS ON MEDICAID CLAIMS
September 19, 2012 § 2 Comments
In a recent estate in this district, the Medicaid Commission took the position that if the decedent claimed homestead on a parcel of property, and was survived by a spouse, one or more children or one or more grandchildren, then Medicaid would release its entire claim, regardless whether the property is worth more than the $75,000 statutory exemption.
In this particular case, the estate’s only asset was the homestead property. The lawyer representing the administrator called the Medicaid Commission to try to negotiate a reduction of its $110,000 claim and advised the commission’s staff attorney that the value of the homestead exceeded $75,000. The staff attorney replied that if the decedent was survived as set out above then Medicaid would release its claim, regardless of the value of the homestead.
Up to now, I had understood that Medicaid would release its claim only to the first $75,000, and would pursue its claim above that amount. In the situation cited above, I would have thought that Medicaid would try to pursue its claim to the $35,000 above the homestead exemption.
If this case does, indeed, indicate a shift in policy, you can be in a position to save your clients in estate matters considerable money simply by making a telephone call to the Medicaid Commission.
CAVEAT: Don’t take this post as authority to do anything. Call the Medicaid Commission yourself and get it from them what their position is with respect to your client’s situation.
If you handle any probate matters at all, you need to be familiar with the exemption statutes and understand how they affect the matters you handle. A helpful post on the topic is here. Not claiming exemptions can cost your clients thousands. Clients love lawyers who can save them thousands.
YET ANOTHER MILITARY DIVORCE POTHOLE
September 10, 2012 § 2 Comments
Representing military parties in a divorce case got a little more difficult a couple of weeks ago, and you need to pay attention or you might unwittingly victimize a client.
The problem lies in the intersection between state divorce law and federal statues governing military benefits.
The latest case is Mallard v. Burkart, decided by the MSSC on August 30, 2012. The parties were divorced in 2001. A significant part of the financial settlement that Burkart received was 40% of Mallard’s “disposable military retirement pay” for ten years. The language of the PSA to effect this division was as follows:
Pursuant to the Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act (“USFSPA”), 10 U.S.C. §1408, the Court makes the finding followings of fact:
(A) That the Husband is currently an active duty service member in the United States Air Force.
(B) That Husband’s rights under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act have been observed in these proceedings.
(C) That Wife and Husband were married for at least ten (10) years during which Husband performed at least ten (10) years creditable service, making Wife eligible for involuntary military deductions under The USFSPA at such time [a]s Husband becomes entitled to retirement pay.
(D) Wife is awarded 40% of Husband’s disposable military retired pay for ten (10) years unconditional. Wife shall continue to receive 40% of Husband’s disposable military retired pay after ten (10) years if she does not remarry or has not lived with someone for a cumulative of sixty (60) days. Payments shall continue until Wife remarries or lives with someone for a cumulative of sixty (60) days upon which time payments shall cease. It is Wife’s responsibility to notify the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and Husband of any change of eligibility for payment.
(E) The Husband voluntarily consents to the exercise of jurisdiction to the State of Mississippi, County of Forrest for division [of] military retired pay.
That would appear to me to be a competently drafted provision that invokes every element needed for Burkart to cash in on her prpoperty settlement. It would also appear to give Burkart a full 40% of Mallard’s retirement pay. But things are not always as they appear, are they?
At some point after the divorce, Mallard elected to take a 60% disability rating as part of his retirement pay. By doing so, under federal law, he reduced his “disposable military retired pay,” dollar for dollar, by 60%. He reduced his payments to Burkart by a corresponding amount, limiting his payments to his ex-wife to the non-disability portion of his retirement. Due to the election, his payments to Burkart fell from $571 a month to between $80 and $120.
When Mallard sued Burkart for modification on some custody issues that are not part of this appeal, Burkart counterclaimed for contempt, based on Mallard’s payment of reduced retirement benefits. She charged that Mallard had improperly structured his retirment so as to defeat her contractual rights in the PSA. The chancellor found for Burkart, awarding her a judgment for $21,213.57, and Mallard appealed.
The MSSC stated the issue before it: ” … today we must determine whether federal law preempts state law, thus precluding state courts from treating as property divisible upon divorce, military retirement pay waived by the military spouse in order to receive military [veterans’] disability benefits.” Justice Carlson’s opinion noted that this was a case of first impression in Mississippi.
The court held that the issue was disposed of in the US Supreme Court case of Mansell v. Mansell, 490 US 581 (1989), in which the high court held: “In this appeal, we decide whether state courts, consistent with the [USFSPA], may treat as property divisible upon divorce military retirement pay waived by the rtetiree in order to receive veterans’ disability benefits. We hold that they may not.”
Another post highlighting a similar preemption problem with military life insurance beneficiary designation is here.
A few observations:
- The MSSC opinion points out that it is unclear when Mallard was determined to be disabled. In my opinion, if the determination had predated the divorce, there is a fraud question in connection with the PSA.
- Considering the minefield of federal law and regulation dealing with retired service members, you might want to define your client’s settlement in terms of alimony and property settlement in set figures as opposed to percentages. I know that percentages are a good way to make sure your client is not short-changed, and I know that alimony can terminate, but wouldn’t Ms. Burkart have been better off with an agreement that Mallard would pay her $571 a month in alimony, or that same sum as a division of her property rights in his military retirement? Then it would have been Mallard’s problem to figure out how to pay it.
- What business do you have representing military parties — either husband or wife — if you don’t keep up with and fully grasp all the ins and outs of federal law and regulations governing military retirement?
None of this is a knock on the lawyers who participated in the drafting of the PSA in this case. This was, after all, a case of first impression in Mississippi. And, apparently and presumably, no one knew at the time of the divorce that there would be a disability election. If they had known, that Mansell case would have loomed large. Very large.
BREAKING LOCK STEP WITH THE CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES
September 5, 2012 § 4 Comments
Holly and Christopher were divorced in 2007, and Holly had custody. Holly remarried and moved with the children to Pennsylvania.
Holly filed for modification in the Chancery Court of Lowndes County alleging that she was a stay-at-home mom who needed more money from Christopher to be able to pay for the children’s various expenses. She said that the $1,000 Christopher was paying was simply not enough to cover the children’s expenses, and she wanted the judge to apply the child support guidelines at MCA 43-19-101 to increase Christopher’s child support to what it should be at his increased income.
The chancellor reviewed the parties’ financial statements, along with the other evidence in the record, and found that the statutory amount of child support payable by Christopher should be $1,400. Nonetheless, she denied Holly’s petition to modify based on the fact that Christopher had to pay the expense of visitation between Mississippi and Pennsylvania, and used that fact as a basis to depart from the statutory guidelines, pursuant to MCA 43-19-103, which sets out the critera the court is to use to justify any departure from the guidelines.
Holly appealed, and in Quinones v. Garcia, decided August 28, 2012, the Coa affirmed.
The appellate court rejected several of Holly’s arguments, including that the chancellor had improperly considered her current spouse’s income and that Christopher had manipulated his mandatory deductions, and held that it was proper for the chancellor to deviate from the statutory child support guidelines where the judge ” … makes ‘an on-the-record finding that it would be unjust or inappropriate to apply the guidelines in the instant case.'” Chesney v. Chesney, 910 So. 2d 1057, 1061 (¶7) (Miss. 2005) (citing McEachern v. McEachern, 605 So. 2d 809, 814 (Miss. 1992)). The court found substantial evidence to support the chancellor’s decision.
When you are trying a child support case, don’t get in lock-step with the idea that the statutory guidelines are inflexible. Look at the deviation criteria. If one of them applies — upward or downward — in your case, use it to your advantage. Offer evidence to support your argument. In this case, Christopher’s attorney saved his client $400 a month.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 