THE MISCHIEF OF “FAMILY SUPPORT”
April 4, 2013 § 3 Comments
I’ve spoken here before about the mischief that can arise when one uses the ambiguous term “family support” instead of terms of art such as “child support,” “alimony,” and “property division” that are familiar to our courts. As I said in a previous post, the repercussions can be quite unexpected and unpleasant for your client.
In a decision handed down March 11, 2013, the US Tax Court in the case of DeLong v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, ruled that the term “family support” creates an alimony obligation, and not a child support obligation.
You can read the decision for yourself, but it essentially turns on the point that since the obligation is not specifically denominated as child support the IRS will not consider it such.
This case arises out of a California divorce judgment. Note that the opinion states that the tax court will look to state law for how the state would treat the obligation. If this were a Mississippi case, the tax court would, to the best of my knowledge, find no helpful authority because the term “family support” is unknown under our law.
There are some serious side-effects from a case such as this. Child support is not deductible by the payer, and it is not income to the payee. Alimony is, however, deductible by the payer, and it most definitely is income to the payee. So, in this case, Mr. Delong got to deduct the payments under the divorce judgment, and the former Mrs. D. gets a bill for income taxes on the payments. If you had negotiated the settlement for Mrs. Delong and that is what she expected as an outcome, then you’re in good shape. If, on the other hand, she was not expecting a tax bill, you’d better look out.
And if the judge, in a comatose moment, injects that kind of language into a judgment, protect your client by filing a timely MRCP 59 motion to get the judge to correct the ambiguity.
In Mississippi, payments are either alimony, or child support, or property division. Denominate them as such, allocating the specific amounts under each. Never use combined language like “Husband shall pay to wife the sum of $2,500 each month as alimony and child support.” And never use ambiguous, non-legal language like “family support” when there are perfectly suitable, meaningful terms like “child support,” “alimony” and “property division” that do the job quite well.
Thanks to Justin Cobb, Esq.
WOMEN IN THE PROFESSION
April 3, 2013 § Leave a comment
You should have received your Winter edition of The Mississippi Lawyer earlier this week, or maybe you will receive it today or tomorrow.
My initial reaction when I gazed at the photographs of the 14 prominent, accomplished women on the cover was “When will we be able to say, simply, ‘here are 14 notable colleagues in the law,’ and not have to draw gender distinctions?”
And then I opened the cover to see the Mississippi Valley Title advertisement that is the opening page inside. I’ll not spoil the delicious irony of that ad for you, but I think when you see it you will agree with me that it communicates quite eloquently why we are still at a stage where we need to focus on the contributions and abilities of women.
As for the magazine, the articles give an insight into the obstacles and hurdles that some of them had to overcome, but mostly, as I read, I was impressed with the fact that their stories are the stories of all Mississippi lawyers. They are stories of hard work, dedication, ideals, and service.
In my experience, in this corner of the state, women lawyers have been successful and have done a good job. The Twelfth District’s own Polly Covington of Quitman is one of the women highlighted in one of the articles. Congratulations, Polly. As the dean of Clarke County lawyers, and a battle-scarred veteran, I know you provide wise counsel and mentorship to other women in the profession in our area.
The other women who are featured are some of the best lawyers, judges, legal educators, and leaders in the state. I have been fortunate enough to know and work with a number of them.
So, yes, it is still appropriate and desirable to praise the achievements of women in the law. Still, I wish we would get to the point where we’re all just lawyers.
STANDING TO FILE A CLAIM AGAINST AN ESTATE
April 2, 2013 § 3 Comments
The COA decision in Estate of Necaise: Covington v. McDaniel, decided March 12, 2013, addresses the question whether a judgment creditor of the potential heirs of an estate has standing to assert a claim against the estate.
Lawrence Covington probated a claim against the estate of Darryl Necaise, Sr., based on a $1,000,000 judgment he had obtained against three of the decedent’s heirs in the Circuit Court of Yalobusha County. The proceedings are convoluted, involve three separate appeals, all consolidated, and even a separate circuit court proceeding. For our purposes, however, we are focusing on the sole issue of Covington’s standing to assert a claim against the estate when the judgment forming the basis of his probated claim was against some of its heirs, and not against the decedent or the estate itself.
Judge Carlton, for the court, spelled out the answer:
¶23. Covington’s appeals regarding the findings of the chancery court primarily arise out of his claim to be an interested party to the probate proceedings and the contest of Darryl Sr.’s will based upon his pecuniary interest in his judgments against potential heirs of the Estate. In support of his argument, Covington relies on Mississippi Code Annotated section 91-7-25 (Rev. 2004), which states that “[i]n any proceeding to contest the validity of a will, all persons interested in such contest shall be made parties.” Significantly, Covington does not assert on appeal that a judgment was entered against the Estate or Darryl Sr., the decedent.
¶24. Relying upon precedent, this Court recognizes that “[i]nterested parties are those whose direct[] pecuniary interests will be either detrimentally or advantageously affected by the probate of the will. Included in this group will ordinarily be [the] decedent’s heirs at law, beneficiaries under earlier wills, and beneficiaries under the will being contested.” Garrett v. Bohannon, 621 So. 2d 935, 937 (Miss. 1993) (emphasis added and citation omitted). With respect to the claim asserted by Covington, we find that Covington failed to prove he possessed a direct pecuniary interest against the Estate. Moreover, the only heir named in Darryl Sr.’s will, McDaniel, never contested the will. In fact, McDaniel, as the executor, had Darryl Sr.’s will admitted to probate; she possessed no duty to notice any parties except creditors of the Estate, which she alleges she accomplished by publication as required. As previously discussed, Darryl Sr.’s former spouse abandoned any intent to contest the will admitted to probate.
¶25. Covington asserts no direct pecuniary interest in the probate of the Estate. Covington is not a creditor of the Estate and identifies no debt or expense owed to him by the Estate or Darryl Sr., the deceased. Further, Covington is not an heir-at-law of the decedent nor a named beneficiary in any will alleged to have been executed by the decedent. In fact, Covington is not a judgment creditor of the sole heir of the estate, McDaniel. Therefore, Covington fails to establish standing to assert a will contest that would never result in him being a beneficiary of the assets of the Estate. His only connection to the Estate is that he tried, yet failed, to obtain a judgment against Darryl Sr. and the Estate. As such, we find this issue to be without merit.
An interesting twist in this case is how Covington attempted to assert himself into the proceedings as to the validity and enforceability of the will itself. I had never seen a party claiming to be a judgment creditor try to assert those kinds of issues in the probate of an estate.
Chancellor Vicki Cobb apparently considered the issue of standing so clear-cut that she assessed sanctions against Covington. You might want to add the possibility of sanctions into the equation before you leap into filing something similar yourself.
MISSING THE ADVERSE EFFECT TO MODIFY
April 1, 2013 § 1 Comment
In Roberts, v. Roberts, decided March 19, 2013, the COA (majority opinion by Judge Roberts, btw) reversed a chancellor’s decision modifying custody where the chancellor did find material change in circumstances, but did not make a finding of adverse effect on the child, and did not address the Albright factors.
Scott Roberts and his ex-wife Stephanie had come to an agreement that their son Tristan could live with Scott, and that Scott could reduce the child support concomitantly. Scott did not pay the reduced amount as agreed, however. Stephanie later sued Scott for unpaid child support in the amount originally ordered by the court. Scott counterclaimed for custody and defended against her claim for child support that he should be liable only for the extra-judicial amount to which the parties had agreed.
Scott’s pleading for custody, styled “counter motion for custody,” did not expressly pray for modification of custody. Instead, it asked that “hereafter, each party should be responsible for child support of the child in their respective custody with neither party responsible for future support of the other.” It also stated that because Tristan had moved in with Scott full-time, there had been a material change in circumstances warranting modification so that neither should pay child support to the other. The COA, at ¶ 29 found these allegations sufficient to put the issue of modification of custody before the trial court, on the basis that, under MRCP 8(f), “All pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice” and, per the comment, ” … that the rights of the client are not lost by the poor drafting skills of counsel.” The court concluded that to do otherwise would be to favor form over substance.
The court reversed and remanded the issue of custody, however. Here’s what the decision said:
The COA reversed and remanded, however, so the pleading, with its flaws, goes back for the chancellor for a do-over. Here’s what the COA said:
¶30. Next, Stephanie claims the chancellor erred by modifying custody of Tristan without first finding that there had been a material change in circumstances adverse to Tristan’s best interest. “The Mississippi Supreme Court [has] held that the prerequisites to the modification of child custody are: (1) proving a material change in circumstances which adversely affects the welfare of the child and (2) finding that the best interest of the child requires the change of custody.” McMurry v. Sadler, 846 So. 2d 240, 243 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Touchstone v. Touchstone, 682 So. 2d 374, 377 (Miss. 1996)). “[F]or the custody order to be modified so as to transfer custody to the non-custodial parent, the non-custodial parent must prove that since the entry of the decree or order sought to be modified, a material change of circumstances has occurred within the custodial home which adversely affects the minor child’s welfare.” Id. at 244 (¶13). “Therefore, in order for the court to proceed on a matter for custody modification, the pleadings must contain allegations that a material change has occurred which adversely affects the child.” Id. It is inappropriate to modify child custody when the non-custodial parent did not file a motion that specifically stated or alleged that there had been a material change in circumstances that adversely affected a child. Id. at (¶14).
¶31. Scott did not claim that there had been a material change in circumstances or that such a change was adverse to Tristan. Furthermore, the chancellor merely held that there had been a material change in circumstances. The chancellor did not find that a material change in circumstances was adverse to Tristan. Furthermore, the chancellor did not conduct an Albright analysis to determine which parent should have custody of Tristan. This Court has held that when considering a modification of child custody, the proper approach is to first identify the specific change in circumstances, and then analyze and apply the Albright factors in light of that change. Where there is no specific identification of the alleged change in circumstances, this Court is placed in the position of attempting to guess what the chancellor determined was a proper basis for a change in custody. Thornell v. Thornell, 860 So. 2d 1241, 1243 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (quoting Sturgis v. Sturgis, 792 So. 2d 1020, 1025 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001)) (quotation marks omitted). Here, we can only guess why the chancellor found that a material change in circumstances was adverse to Tristan’s best interest. Furthermore, the chancellor did not conduct an Albright analysis before he found that it was appropriate to award custody of Tristan to Scott. In Thornell, 860 So. 2d at 1243 (¶¶7-8), this Court reversed a chancellor’s decision to modify child custody, because the chancellor failed to identify a specific change in circumstances that adversely affected the welfare of the child, and the chancellor failed to conduct an on-the-record analysis of the Albright factors. This Court concluded that it was appropriate to reverse the chancellor’s judgment and remand the matter to the chancellor for further proceedings. Id. at (¶¶8-9). Following Thornell, we remand this matter to the chancellor for further proceedings regarding how Tristan’s decision to live primarily with Scott amounted to a material change in circumstances adverse to Tristan’s best interest in light of the fact that Scott and Stephanie agreed that they would have joint physical custody of Tristan and Carleigh.
I agree that the case should have been reversed, but in my opinion the pleadings were fatally defective on two counts:
- In McMurry v. Sadler, 846 So.2d 240, 243-4 (Miss. App. 2002), it was held that a mere allegation of material change in circumstances in a pleading was inadequate to support a claim for modification, and that the pleading must expressly include the allegation that the change has had an adverse effect on the child. A distinguishing factor here is that, apparently, that issue was not contemporaneously raised to the chancellor as it was via a motion to dismiss in McMurry; but it was raised in this case by Stephanie on appeal. Although the appellate opinion references McMurry, it does so not for the pleading aspect of the case, but only for its holding that the proof must support a finding of adverse effect. I agree with Judge Roberts that the requirement imposed in McMurry elevates form over substance, but that is what the appellate court specifically mandated for this specific cause of action, “notice pleading” notwithstanding.
- These pleadings do not even state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In Arnold v. Conwill, 562 So.2d 97 (Miss. 1990), the supreme court held that where the parties agree for a child to live for a time with the other parent, that circumstance standing alone does not support modification of custody. Since that is all that Scott pled, I don’t see how he could get a permanent modification on the strength of this pleading.
MEET THE SPECIAL GENERAL GUARDIAN
March 28, 2013 § 2 Comments
The governor signed a bill into law on March 14, 2013, that will introduce the concept of “Special General Guardian” to our jurisprudence.
SB 2375, which goes into effect July1, 2013, addresses an increasingly frequent, and troubling, phenomenon — the absent parent. More and more, we are seeing cases in chancery where the parents simply abandon responsiblity for their child or children to relatives or even neighbors. Drugs are the most common reason, but so are immaturity, mental illness, and incarceration.
Under our current system, the person who wants to take responsibility for the child must apply to the court for either a guardianship or custody. A guardianship requires an attorney, accountings, notices to creditors, and on and on. A custody action usually entails litigation because even irresponsible parents balk at losing custody.
Under the new law, codified at MCA 93-13-37, “If the minor ward has a father or mother but no parent able to take responsibility for the minor, and the minor’s assets do not include any real property, cash-on-hand of no more than Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($250), and personal property worth no more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000), and the court finds that it would be in the best interests of the minor, a special general guardian who is related to the minor by blood or marriage may be appointed for the minor.” An attorney is not required, and the court “shall waive” annual or final accountings. At any time that any realty, personalty or monies of the ward greater in value than the initial limits come into the hands of the special general guardian, he or she must comply with all requirements of the law pertaining to general guardians, and, in addition, must seek directions from the court as to the disposition of the assets.
The law also provides an abbreviated procedure for closure, which does not necessarily require a final accounting.
This provision will definitely meet a pressing need in chancery court. The general guardianship statutes do not quite fit this situation. Also, many grandparents (by a large percentage the most frequent petitioners) in these cases are already financially pressed and are getting no financial help from the natural parents, and they find it difficult to divert funds to legal expenses that they would prefer to spend on their new responsibilities.
SOME SAGE DIVORCE ADVICE
March 27, 2013 § Leave a comment
WordPress has a feature for us bloggers that shows the search terms that brought readers to our sites. Randy Wallace of Clinton used the search terms he collected on his blog as a platform for a Q&A for divorces.
Here’s a link to his post from March 22, 2013 Search terms……….Ask Randy, which I think any family law practitioner would find to be spot on.
While you’re at it, Randy’s post from June of last year 40 Things …… make that 41 NOT to do during your divorce is a masterpiece.
… AND ANOTHER NON-SUPPORT WRINKLE
March 26, 2013 § Leave a comment
Picking up where we left off yesterday …
Another specie of non-support agreement presents itself when the parties agree that husband will support the child or children in his care, and wife will support the child or children in her care, with no child support changing hands.
In Roberts v, Roberts, decided March 19, 2013, by the COA, the court found no error in the chancellor’s decision modifying child support to eliminate the father’s duty to pay the mother, due to the fact that one child had come to live with the father, leaving one child behind with the mother, based on the parties’ extra-judicial agreement. The court stated that, “Because each parent had primary physical custody of one child, we do not find that the chancellor abused his discretion when he held that neither Scott nor Stephanie was obligated to pay child support.”
A similar situation arises when one parent has the child or children half the time. We see it every now and then in this district with oilfield workers, who work two-weeks out and two-weeks in, and there is a shared custody arrangement. Same with parents who rotate custodial periods.
The logic is almost irrefutable in those cases that it makes no sense to order the father to pay the mother child support, and the mother to send child support in turn to the father.
I say “almost irrefutable” because there are cases where there is such a disparity in income that I order the higher income parent to pay some support to the other parent, just so that the children will not have strikingly different standards of living in each household. In one case, the father worked offshore earning $70,000 a year, and the mother worked part-time in a convenience store. The parties wanted me to approve an agreement that each would support the child in his or her custody. I refused, because although each parent had one child living with him or her, it was only fair that the father pay child support so that the child with him would not live “in the lap of luxury,” while the other child with the mother would live near destitution.
The duty of the parent to support the child who is with him or her is distinguishable from the situation where the parties simply waive child support altogether. The former is allowed because the child is going to be supported; the latter is not allowed because there is no duty of support at all.
NON-SUPPORT AGREEMENTS
March 25, 2013 § 2 Comments
I am regularly presented PSA’s and agreed judgments that include a provision that the non-custodial parent will not pay any child support to the custodian. I don’t like it, for reasons that I have expounded on here before.
In my opinion, such agreements are not only undesirable, they are void.
The case of Houck v. Ousterhout, 861 So.2d 1000 (Miss. 2003) may be dispositive. Timothy James Houck and his former wife, Guyolyn Ousterhout, had been involved in various modifications and contempt actions as their children moved in varying numbers from household to household. In 1996, after several inconclusive skirmishes in court, they entered into an agreed judgment that recited that “[m]aterial changes ha[d] occurred in the life of Timothy … which prevent[ed] him from being able to pay his child support as directed. They agreed that Timothy would pay Guyolyn $1,500 in exchange for her waiver of any claim to “past, present and future child support payments,” and further that they agreed “to forever release one another from any obligation, now or in the future, of child support payments by or to either party.”
Notwithstanding the agreement, the parties found themselves yet again in litigation, in which Guyolyn asked, among other things, for nullification of the agreed order. The chancellor did void the agreed judgment as against public policy, and awarded Guyolyn a judgment against Timothy in the sum of $89,848.65. Timothy appealed.
The MSSC affirmed:
¶ 8. The modification relieving Houck of any obligation to pay child support to a custodial parent is null and void. Child support payments are made to the custodial parent for the benefit of the child. Tanner v. Roland, 598 So.2d 783, 786 (Miss.1992); Lawrence v. Lawrence, 574 So.2d 1376, 1381 (Miss.1991). The child’s right to his parent’s support cannot be bargained or contracted away by his parents. Tanner, 598 So.2d at 786; Calton v. Calton, 485 So.2d 309, 310-11 (Miss.1986).
¶ 9. We have consistently held that child support payments vest in the child as they accrue. Once they have become vested, just as they cannot be contracted away by the parents, they cannot be modified or forgiven by the courts. Tanner, 598 So.2d at 786; Varner v. Varner, 588 So.2d 428, 432-33 (Miss.1991); Premeaux v. Smith, 569 So.2d 681, 685 (Miss.1990); Thurman v. Thurman, 559 So.2d 1014, 1016-17 (Miss.1990); Cumberland v. Cumberland, 564 So.2d 839, 847 (Miss.1990); Brand v. Brand, 482 So.2d 236, 237 (Miss.1986). Each payment that becomes due and remains unpaid “becomes ‘a judgment’ against the supporting parent.” Tanner, 598 So.2d at 786; Brand, 482 So.2d at 237; Cunliffe v. Swartzfager, 437 So.2d 43, 45-46 (Miss.1983); Howard v. Howard, 191 So.2d 528, 531 (Miss.1966). The only defense thereto is payment. Tanner, 598 So.2d at 786; Varner, 588 So.2d at 433. That two of the children are now emancipated does not preclude Ousterhout from seeking recovery of the arrearage from Houck. Tanner, 598 So.2d at 786; Varner, 588 So.2d at 433.
¶ 10. Accrued child support payments cannot be extinguished by a court: “A court cannot relieve the civil liability for support payments that have already accrued.” Hailey v. Holden, 457 So.2d 947, 951 (Miss.1984) (citing Cunliffe, 437 So.2d at 43; Duncan v. Duncan, 417 So.2d 908 (Miss.1982); Howard, 191 So.2d at 528). We have found a chancellor to be in error for suspending execution on a judgment for past due child support. Brand, 482 So.2d at 238-39. We have likewise held that a chancellor erred in finding that payment of only that part of the past due child support which had accrued prior to the warring couple’s protracted child support litigation extinguished his liability. Cumberland, 564 So.2d at 847-48; see also Thurman, 559 So.2d at 1016-17 (Where a supporting parent had paid roughly half the amount owed under a prior decree for two months and none during the third month in question, the chancellor erred in finding that the parent was liable only for the difference between the unpaid amounts and the greatly reduced modified monthly obligation.). [Emphasis added]
To me, the principle is crystal clear: the chancellor can not approve an agreement that relieves a parent of the duty to support his or her child, either prospectively or retroactively.
ANSWERS TO WICKED MISSISSIPPI TRIVIA REDUX
March 22, 2013 § 4 Comments
Here are the answers …
1. McKinley Morganfield and Chester Burnett are two world-renowned Mississippians. What were they famous for, and by what names did we know them?
Answer: Blues musicians Muddy Waters (Morganfield) and Howlin’ Wolf (Burnett).
2. What was the name of US President James K. Polk’s plantation in what is now Grenada County?
Answer: Yalobusha.
3. What and where was the second oldest military academy (after West Point) in the US, and the first educational institution in the Mississippi Territory?
Answer: Jefferson College, near Washington, Mississippi, in Adams County. Jefferson Davis studied there, and John James Audubon was a professor there from 1822-23. Aaron Burr was arraigned there for treason. It ceased operation in 1964, and is now a state park site.
4. What now-nationwide organization was first established in 1909 in Crystal Springs?
Answer: The PTA.
5. The first franchised Holiday Inn was located in which Mississippi city?
Answer: Clarksdale.
6. Where does the “Southern cross the ‘Dog?” and what does that phrase mean?
Answer: In Moorhead, where the Southern RR was intersected at a 90-degree angle by the old Yazoo & Mississippi Valley RR (aka Yazoo & Delta, or YD = “Yellow Dog” or, simply ‘Dog), said to be the only 90-degree RR intersection in N. America. It’s mentioned in W.C. Handy’s “Yellow Dog Blues” and several other blues songs. Although the line is abandoned now, there is a monument at the site, and the crossed rails are preserved.
7. Casey Jones, a resident of Jackson, Tennessee, met his famous death in Vaughn, Mississippi. In what Mississippi town did he reside from 1893-1896?
Answer: Water Valley.
8. The adjoining towns of Pittsburgh and Tullahoma were consolidated on July 4, 1836, to form which Mississippi city?
Answer: Grenada.
9. Jesse James robbed a bank in which Mississippi city?
Answer: Corinth. On December 7, 1874, the Tishomingo Savings Bank was robbed, and witnesses attributed it to the James-Younger gang. Some witnesses claimed he was not with his gang when the robbery took place, and, indeed, he was seen in a train robbery in Kansas the following day.
10. A traditional belief of the Choctaw people is that they first appeared on earth when they emerged from a cave near the “Mother Mound” in Mississippi. What is the mound called, and where is it?
Answer: Nanih Waiya, about 15 mi. NE of Philadelphia.
11. Avalon, a defunct village in Carroll County, is the home town of which famous Mississipian?
Answer: Blues artist Mississippi John Hurt.
12. When he raided CSA President Jefferson Davis’s Brierfield plantation near Vicksburg, Ulysses Grant stole – or “confiscated” – one of Davis’s horses that the Union commander used through the rest of the Civil War. What did the General name his stolen horse?
Answer: “Jeff Davis.” Grant’s primary mount was “Cincinnatus,” but Jeff Davis the horse served as a replacement.
13. Name the community founded in the Mississippi Delta in 1887 by descendants of Davis Bend, a utopian slave community established by Joseph Davis, older brother of Jefferson Davis.
Answer: Mound Bayou.
14. What was the original name of the site that became Jackson before it was known as LeFleur’s Bluff?
Answer: Parkerville.
15. Which Laurel native became an internationally acclaimed soprano with the New York Metropolitan Opera?
Answer: Leontyne Price.
16. Which of Mississippi’s yacht clubs has the distinction of being only the second to be established in the U.S.?
Answer: Pass Christian Yacht Club, founded in 1849. The New York Yacht Club, founded in 1844, was the first.
17. Who is “The Sage of Tippo?”
Answer: Noted jazz musician Mose Allison, of Tippo, in Tallahatchie County.
18. Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 campaign for President as the Republican party nominee at what Mississippi event?
Answer: The Neshoba County Fair. He delivered a speech that drew criticism because he used the phrase “I believe in states’ rights” in the county where three civil rights workers had been murdered 16 years before. States’ rights had been considered by many to be a code phrase used in the 1950’s and 60’s for segregation.
19. On May 26, 1736, a combined force of 1,200 French and Choctaws, under command of Bienville, was defeated by Chickasaw defenders in the Battle of Akia, in what present-day Mississippi county?
Answer: Lee, about 3 mi. S of Tupelo. The name of the village is actually “Hikia” in Chickasaw, which means erected, or set up.
20. The fictional Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy, chief medical officer of the Starship Enterprise in the original Star Trek series, had a Mississippi connection. What was it?
Answer: He attended Ole Miss.
21. Just before the Civil War, 92.5% of this Mississippi county’s total population were slaves–the highest concentration of slaves in the United States.
Answer: Issaquena. The 1860 U.S. Census reported a total of 7,244 slaves held in Issaquena County, and of 115 slave owners, 39 held 77 or more slaves
22. What is the oldest newspaper published in Mississippi?
Answer: The Woodville Republican, since 1823.
23. At 86.5%, this Mississippi county has the highest percentage of African American population of any county in the United States. Which is it?
Answer: Jefferson.
24. What was the historic, now defunct, road that entered Mississippi from Alabama in what is now Lowndes County, crossed Noxubee, Kemper, Newton, Jasper, Jones, Marion, and Pearl River Counties before crossing into Louisiana at the Pearl River twenty miles west of Poplarville, Mississippi?
Answer: The Jackson Military Road, established at the insistence of General Andrew Jackson to facilitate the movement of forces south for defense of New Orleans. It was authorized by Congress in 1816, and was completed in 1820, under supervision of Jackson himself. Roads and streets with names such as “military road” and “Jackson Military Road” can still be found along the route.
25. Name the four official sites of the state capital through its history.
Answer: Natchez, Washington, Columbia and Jackson. After Jackson was occupied and burned in the Civil War, other provisional seats of government were Columbus, Macon, Enterprise and Meridian.
Bonus Question: What was the unusual object that fell from the sky in an 1887 hailstorm in Bovina?
Answer: A 6″ x 8″ gopher turtle encased entirely in ice.
