Thoughts on Oliver
June 11, 2019 § Leave a comment
We talked yesterday about the Oliver estate case and the appellant’s allegations that the chancellor was biased and should have recused herself. Here are some ruminations:
- The chancellor is presumed to be impartial, qualified, and unbiased, and the burden is on the party moving to overcome the presumption by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate courts have described this as a “heavy burden.”
- If you will read the facts in Oliver, Sandra was not only warned by the judge not to file scandalous, impertinent, and even libelous material in the action, but the chancellor even sanctioned her. No doubt the chancellor became exasperated with Sandra’s conduct. But exasperation and impatience do not equate to bias or prejudice.
- You won’t have much success in getting a judge to recuse if you wait until after an adverse ruling to ask for recusal.
- UCCR 1.11 imposes deadlines on when you must file a motion to recuse. It must be filed within 30 days of the date when the parties are notified of the judge assigned to the case, or within 30 days of the date when the party first learns of a basis to seek recusal, if that information was not known to the movants when they learned the identity of the judge.
- Note the language from Tubwell cited in ¶108: ” Where the party knew of the grounds for the motion or with the exercise of reasonable diligence may have discovered those grounds, and where that party does not move timely prior to trial, the point will be deemed waived” [my emphasis]. So that language in UCCR 1.11 about information not known to the movant needs to be understood as meaning not only not known, but also not known after exercising reasonable diligence.
- Sandra also argued that her filing of a judicial performance complaint against the judge mandated that the judge recuse herself. Our appellate courts have not favored litigants creating their own grounds for recusal in that fashion. In the cited Adams case, the appellant tried to oust a judge she didn’t like by filing suit against her in federal court, and by filing bar and judicial complaints. It didn’t work.
- If you want to charge a judge with being combative, antagonistic, discourteous, and adversarial, as Sandra tried here, your blueprint is the Smith v. Bermudez case cited in ¶112.
An Exasperated Judge is not Necessarily a Biased Judge
June 10, 2019 § Leave a comment
Sandra Oliver was a party in chancery court hearings involving probate of her grandmother’s estate and partition of her real property. The chancellor’s ruling on the merits were not to her liking, and she appealed pro se.
One of the issues she raised on appeal was that the chancellor should have recused herself because she was biased against her and her father. In Estate of Oliver: Oliver v. Oliver and Carney, decided April 16, 2019, the COA affirmed. The portion of Judge Carlton’s opinion addressing the issue is longer than I usually quote, but I think you will find it helpful:
¶103. Sandra asserts that her and her father’s due process rights were violated at hearings before Chancellor Daniels that took place in both the partition and estate matters due to the chancellor’s alleged bias against her. We find Sandra’s contentions without merit. ¶104. The supreme court has recognized that “[t]his Court presumes that a judge, sworn to administer impartial justice, is qualified and unbiased. For a party to overcome the presumption, the party must produce evidence of a reasonable doubt about the validity of the presumption.” Kinney v. S. Miss. Planning & Dev. Dist. Inc., 202 So. 3d 187, 194 (¶20) (Miss. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Continuing, the supreme court explained that “[r]easonable doubt may be found when there is a question of whether a reasonable person, knowing all of the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality. Said another way, the presumption is overcome only by showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the judge was biased or unqualified.” Id.; see Washington Mut. Fin. Grp. LLC v. Blackmon, 925 So. 2d 780, 785 (¶12) (Miss. 2004) (recognizing the “heavy burden” a movant bears in proving that a judge’s purported hostility requires recusal).
¶105. Sandra contends that the chancellor displayed “biased actions” in the partition action at the February 2, 2015 hearing on Sandra’s motion to controvert, the Carneys’ motion in limine to exclude testimony or evidence relating to any claim that Sandra may have due to the actions of J.C., and issues relevant to that motion raised in Sandra’s pro se motion to correct facts. Sandra was represented by counsel at that hearing. In her brief, Sandra refers to this hearing as a “non-hearing,” and contends that the chancellor showed bias because she did not allow presentation of evidence or testimony. We disagree.
¶106. At the beginning of the hearing, the chancellor observed that Sandra had “explain[ed] her whole case” in her pro se motion to correct facts. The chancellor then stated on the record that she had “read the entire [court] file and not just the motions that are noticed for hearing today . . . [and that she] under[stood] very thoroughly what the issues [were and] the issues that [Sandra tried] to raise . . . .” The chancellor then heard argument of counsel at length, and discussed numerous points of law with counsel. In our review of the hearing transcript, we find no indication that the chancellor displayed bias in any way at the February 2, 2015 hearing.
¶107. Regarding subsequent hearings before Chancellor Daniels, Sandra states in her brief that after the February 2, 2015 “non-hearing,” she “filed a formal complaint with the judicial committee against Judge Daniels based on all of the biased actions, reactions, denial of a hearing and presenting of any testimony as well as remarks made at the February 2nd, 2015 hearing.” Sandra’s judicial performance complaint against Chancellor Daniels was filed in June 2016, at least three months before the September 27, 2016 final partition hearing before Chancellor Daniels, and five months before the November 14, 2016 hearing in the estate action, also before Chancellor Daniels. On appeal, Sandra claims that her filing of the judicial performance complaint against Chancellor Daniels in June 2016 is a basis for requiring Chancellor Daniels’s recusal at these subsequent hearings.
¶108. As to this argument, we observe that Sandra did not object or file a motion in either the partition or estate action asking Chancellor Daniels to recuse. Sandra’s argument about Chancellor Daniels’s alleged bias was not raised until her appeal, which procedurally bars her from arguing the issue in this case. Tubwell v. Grant, 760 So. 2d 687, 689 (¶8) (Miss. 2000). As the supreme court recognized in Tubwell:
Over the years, this Court has been quick to point out that it will not allow a party to take his chances with a judge about whom he knows of [alleged] grounds for recusal and then, after he loses, file his motion. Where the party knew of the grounds for the motion or with the exercise of reasonable diligence may have discovered those grounds, and where that party does not move timely prior to trial, the point will be deemed waived. Id.
As a result of her untimely objection, Sandra has waived this issue. See also Latham v. Latham, 261 So. 3d 1110, 1113 (¶¶9-11) (Miss. 2019) (holding that appellant waived recusal argument on appeal where he knew the ground for June 2016. In Adams, 249 So. 3d at 467-68 (¶¶15-21), Elle Adams made the same argument, asserting that the chancellor in that case should have recused herself because Elle had filed a state bar complaint and federal action against the chancellor. We rejected Elle’s argument,
finding that the chancellor’s awareness of the federal action against her, and the pending state bar complaint, did not require recusal where there was “no evidence that the chancellor’s impartiality might be reasonably questioned.” Id. at 468 (¶21). We find that the same analysis applies in this case.
¶111. Sandra quotes from the September 27, 2016 final partition hearing as an example of the chancellor’s “grudge” against her. But in this excerpt the chancellor, at most, is expressing frustration with the parties’ inability to reach an agreement on any detail, including what half of the property they wanted (“I was hoping y’all could at least agree on one thing, but obviously y’all cannot agree on whether the sun is shining outside or not.”). Our review of the transcript from the September 27, 2016 hearing shows no bias warranting recusal.
¶112. Similarly, Sandra quotes snippets of exchanges from the November 14, 2016 hearing in the estate case that she claims demonstrates the chancellor’s alleged animosity towards her. These include exchanges such as the chancellor telling Sandra that “[i]f you have a problem with my ruling, appeal it[;]” and the chancellor’s admonishment to Sandra to “be careful[,]” stated in the context of Sandra representing herself. These statements, particularly when read in context, are nowhere near the “combative, antagonistic, discourteous, and adversarial” conduct that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Sandra did not receive a fair hearing. Cf. Schmidt v. Bermudez, 5 So. 3d 1064, 1074 (¶¶19-21) (Miss. 2009) (finding that a chancellor’s “abusive and inappropriate conduct,” including, but not limited to, repeatedly questioning a party’s honesty, badgering that party during cross-examination regarding evidence to be presented in her own case, and accusing the party of “diarrhea of
the mouth” violated party’s substantive right to a fair trial). Sandra also quotes an exchange in which the chancellor refused to let Sandra testify about ad valorem tax issues—but, as the chancellor explained in the next line of the transcript (not included in Sandra’s snippet), this was because Sandra was trying to raise issues already ruled upon at the final partition hearing. Nothing in that exchange suggests a lack of impartiality in any way.
¶113. In short, our review of the September 27, 2016 and November 14, 2016 hearing transcripts does not reveal any exchange between Sandra and the chancellor that suggests any hostility, lack of impartiality, or ill will on the chancellor’s part so as to result in a “manifest miscarriage of justice” in this case. We reject this assignment of error.
Some comments tomorrow.
“Quote Unquote”
June 7, 2019 § Leave a comment
“It doesn’t matter who my father was; it matters who I remember he was.” — Anne Sexton
“To become a father is not hard; to be a father is.” — William Busch
“One day he was repairing the light fixture in the bathroom. He asked me to hold one of his hands and to grip the faucet of the bathtub with my other hand. I did this. Then he licked the index finger of his free hand and stuck it in the socket where the light bulb had been. As the electricity passed through him and into me and through me and was grounded in the faucet of the bathtub, my father kept saying, ‘Pal, I won’t hurt you. I won’t hurt you.’ If I had let go of the faucet both of us would have died. If I had let go of his hand, he would have died.” — James Alan McPherson
The Equitable Power of the Circuit Court
June 5, 2019 § 1 Comment
When Trustmark Bank foreclosed on Odell and Renodda Dorman’s property, it was discovered that the property description of the Dorman’s 6-acre residence was not included. With that discovery, the Dormans moved back home. The bank filed suit in circuit court for a deficiency judgment, and the Dormans counterclaimed for wrongful foreclosure on their residence. In turn, the bank moved to amend to plead mutual mistake, which the court granted. The bank moved for summary judgment, in the course of which the bank somehow requested reformation of the deed for mutual mistake. The court ordered reformation of the deed and granted summary judgment. The Dormans appealed.
Before we go to the next step, the point needs to be made that reformation of an instrument is a quintessentially equitable process. If you were going to file an original action for reformation, you would file it in chancery court. So was the circuit judge in error by granting equitable relief in this case? The argument that the Dormans made before the COA was that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and so the judgment was void.
In Dorman v. Trustmark, decided May 7, 2019, the COA affirmed on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Chief Judge Barnes wrote for the unanimous court:
¶9. Before addressing the substantive issues raised on appeal, we first consider the Dormans’ claim that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Trustmark’s complaint requested recovery of a deficiency judgment on a loan, which the Dormans acknowledge was properly before the circuit court as a matter of law. However, the circuit court allowed Trustmark to amend its answer to the Dormans’ counterclaim to assert reformation and mutual mistake as a defense. At the motions hearing, the circuit judge questioned whether he had the power to reform the deed, noting: “It’s just I think that the place for that correction is in front of a chancellor.” After briefing by the parties on the issue, the court determined in its final judgment that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims. The Dormans now argue that Trustmark tried to “back door” the issue of reformation by filing the complaint for the deficiency judgment and that the bank “should have sought reformation in chancery court.”
¶10. “To determine whether a court has subject[-]matter jurisdiction, we look to the face of the complaint, examining the nature of the controversy and the relief sought.” RAS Family Partners LP v. Onnam Biloxi LLC, 968 So. 2d 926, 928 (¶11) (Miss. 2007) (emphasis added). “If the complaint seeks legal relief, even in combination with equitable relief, the circuit court can have proper subject[-]matter jurisdiction.” Id. “[E]quitable claims are more appropriately brought before a circuit court when they are connected to a contractual relationship or other claims tied to questions of law.” Era Franchise Sys. Inc. v. Mathis, 931 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (¶14) (Miss. 2006).
¶11. As the court noted, Trustmark’s complaint asserted a legal claim for a deficiency judgment; the issue of mutual mistake later arose as an affirmative defense to the counterclaim. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that once a circuit court acquires subject-matter jurisdiction of an action at law, “it may hear and adjudicate in that action all claims, including those with an equitable smell, arising out of the same transaction and occurrence as the principal claim.” Hall v. Corbin, 478 So. 2d 253, 255 (Miss. 1985). This includes “other claims (whether asserted by the one or more of the original parties or by new or intervening parties), ancillary or pendent to the original claim,” even if those claims “standing alone may have been beyond the court’s jurisdiction.” Id. Because Trustmark’s equitable claim was raised as a defense to the Dormans’ counterclaim, we find no error in the circuit court’s determination that it had subject-matter jurisdiction of Trustmark’s claim for reformation of the DOT.
The COA reversed the grant of summary judgment because there was a fact issue of mutual mistake and remanded for further proceedings.
Some years ago an attorney told me that he wanted to file a 2-count complaint: Count I for alienation of affection against the defendant and his paramour; and Count II for divorce against the defendant for divorce and related relief. I told him that, if he did I would transfer the case to circuit court; our law is that once a case is transferred it can not be transferred back to the transferring court. We had a good laugh over that. The idea of a circuit judge (and possibly a jury) having to grope their way through a divorce was rife with comedic possibilities. When I mentioned it to a circuit judge, though, he simply smiled and said, “No problem; I would just appoint you as special master to hear the divorce.” That put an end to that.
Medical Bills and Minor’s Settlements
June 4, 2019 § Leave a comment
Stacy, age 8, is injured in an automobile accident. Her medical bills are $17,000 for the hospital, $800 for ambulance and EMT, and $1,200 for miscellaneous doctors and other medical. Total is $19,000.
Whom should the judge order to pay the bills? Stacy? Her parents? Leave them unpaid? The questions seem almost absurd. Sould an 8-year-old child be expected to pay her own medical bills? Aren’t medical bills the kind of thing that parents provide for their children? But what if the parents don’t have the ability to pay? And if we leave the bills unpaid, what impact will that have on the ability of the parents to access medical care for Stacy in the future?
All of those questions are what the judge needs answered in the course of a minor’s settlement. But often those kinds of questions are left unasked. Worse … when I try to ask the petitioners (usually parents) why they want the bills to be paid out of the proceeds of a minor’s settlement, they have no clue about what I am asking. It’s obvious that the issue has never been discussed between attorney and client.
It’s been the expectation for a long time that medical bills for the child will be paid out of the child’s settlement proceeds. But that came into question after Gulfport Memorial Hospital v. Proulx, which you can read about at this link, which held essentially that medical providers do not have a statutory lien against settlement proceeds, and, therefore, they do not have the right to collect from them.
So when you ask the court to pay medical bills out of the minor’s settlement proceeds, you are asking the court to order the minor (or her guardian) to pay her own expenses. To accomplish that you have to put some evidence in the record that it is in the child’s best interest to order that. My suggestion is that you offer proof that: (1) the parents do not have the financial ability to pay; (2) ordering the parents to pay will impose undue financial hardship on the family; (3) the bills can not be left unpaid because those medical providers may refuse service in the future because of the unpaid balances.
I usually ask questions to elicit that information if the lawyers do not because I want justification in the record. Instead, what I get is blank stares. It doesn’t have to be that way. Prepare your witness. Be ready to put justification in the record for ordering the child to pay her own expenses.
Rule 8.05 and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
June 3, 2019 § 1 Comment
UCCR 8.05 should make everyone’s job in chancery court a lot easier. But lawyers, in their eternal ingenuity for contriving ways to complicate nearly all of creation, turn them into an implement of torture that they inflict on the court.
Chancellor Haydn Roberts of Rankin County presented this material at the Bar’s Family Law Section Hot Tips Seminar recently:
How to Confuse, Frustrate and/or Anger a Judge with an 8.05
Seriously, it happens often!
Don’t Prepare an an 8.05
Rule 8.05 states: “Unless excused by Order of the Court for good cause shown, each party in every domestic case involving economic issues and/or property division shall provide the opposite party or counsel, if known, an 8.05 in compliance with subparts (a) and (b) of the rule
Speights v. Speights, 2016-CA-01691-COA
Prepare your client’s 8.05 in the lobby, hallway or parking lot immediately preceding trial
Most of us Judges aren’t stupid and can tell when an 8.05 is prepared in this fashion
Common errors when this happens include unsigned 8.05s, incomplete property asset listing, incomplete debt listing and amounts, confusing expenses, pages
missing,
AND MY FAVORITE – misspelled children’s names and inaccurate birthdays
Don’t Bring Copies
You need a minimum of 5 copies (6 with a GAL)
Your copy
Counsel opposite
The Court
Evidence
Copy for the witness
GAL copy
Deflate Income
Gross income – “total income from all sources before deductions, exemptions or other tax deductions
Includes wages, investment income, gifts from friends, rentals, social security, pension, child support, etc…
Overtime hours count
Be careful as the Judge may ask for a recent loan application from your client, wherein he/she must report his/her income
See, 2017-CA-1476 SCT; Tracy Marie Miles Williams v. Brent Reid Williams; affirmed 01/17/19; and Trim v. Trim 33 So.3d 471 (Miss. 2010)
Inflate Expenses
If your client’s expenses far exceed his/her income, and he/she doesn’t have much debt…SOMETHING ISN’T CORRECT
Single person in an apartment shouldn’t incur $1200/month in food and household items BUT single person raising multiple children will incur at least that much
Most client’s don’t have much “household maintenance”
Pet expenses, yard expenses, miscellaneous, entertainment should be ACTUAL and know what those items entail
Double-dip Expenses
Some insurance is listed as a deduction
Don’t use health insurance as a mandatory deduction and then also an “insurance expense”
Same with life insurance, property insurance, rental insurance, automobile insurance, personal property insurance, umbrellas
Intermingle Expenses
Use columns
Expenses could be current, past, future
Expenses could be single, family/household, and/or spouse + child(ren)
Keep it realistic even if speculative
Fail to Update
Time Lapse between temporary hearing and final may mean different information
When you update an 8.05 tell the Court
Witness/Client should know the differences and WHY there are differences
If Client has new employment, attach new pay stub
Mislabel property
Make sure personal property matches
“Grandma’s antique roll top desk” on wife’s 8.05 is the same as “desk in bedroom” on husband’s 8.05
2012 Accord on wife’s 8.05 is the Blue Honda on husband’s 8.05
Watch the models, years, makes, account numbers, bank names, creditors’ names
Mark property value/equity as “unknown”
If you list an asset or debt as “unknown” and the opposite party has a value, the Judge will likely use that value
Be prepared to give a value even if it’s an educated guess
Be prepared to discuss the other party’s value(s) and why it/they are wrong
REMEMBER – asset value as to “stuff” is garage sale value, not brand spanking new
Who Needs Statements? [i.e., Documentation]
Debts should be corroborated by statements
Helps if they are at or near date of demarcation you are requesting
Retirement accounts
Bank accounts with substantial balances
Other accounts
Church Donations
This not a way to equalize income to expenses
If client makes church donations during a court matter, they should KNOW the following:
Church’s name
Church’s location
What service time they attend
Preacher’s name
Some previous posts on how to improve your 8.05’s are here, here, and here. Or type “8.05” in the search box to access a plethora of posts on financial proof and 8.05’s.
A Valuable Resource is Coming Your Way
May 31, 2019 § Leave a comment
Chancery judges have long had a resource not available to practitioners: The Benchbook for Mississippi Chancery Court Judges.
The last printed edition I have consists of 31 chapters on topics ranging from divorce, alimony, probate, property, restraining orders and injunctions, recusal, and everything in between. There are case citations, tables of authority, statutes, and other helpful material. It is updated periodically by the Mississippi Judicial College’s (MJC’s) excellent staff attorneys.
In the past few years the Benchbook has been accessible behind a password-wall at MJC’s web site, rather than in printed form.
The good news for you is that, effective July 1, 2019, the password will no longer be required, and attorneys and others will be able to access this valuable resource. You will have at your fingertips some of the best research you could hope for ready to use in any chancery proceeding.
You will find the Benchbook at the MJC web site under the ‘Publications” tab, or at this link.
PS … there are benchbooks for circuit and county court judges, and even for justice court judges.
Ins and Outs of Recusal
May 29, 2019 § Leave a comment
There comes a time in every lawyer’s life when you have no choice but to file a motion for the judge to recuse.
Most recusal situations are pretty clear, but not all are. It’s awkward at best to suggest that the judge should not be hearing your case, particularly where you are insinuating that ethical challenges may be involved. So you want to do it right if you’re going to do it at all. Here is some information that might help you get it right.
There are two categories of situations giving rise to consideration of recusal.
The first category consists of situations where the judge is per se disqualified and recusal is required unless waived by the parties. The bases for disqualification per se are set out in the Mississippi Constitution and the Mississippi Code.
The second category consists of situations in which grounds for disqualification per se are not present, but the judge’s impartiality might be questioned by a reasonable person knowing all of the pertinent facts. These are spelled out in Miss. Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3E.
Category One: Per Se Disqualification
Mississippi Constitution Article 6, § 165 states: “No judge of any court shall preside on the trial of any cause, where the parties or either of them, shall be connected with him by affinity or consanguinity, or where he may be interested in the same, except by the consent of the judge and of the parties.”
Mississippi Code Ann. § 9-1-11 sets forth the same bases for recusal as provided in the constitution and adds the ground that the judge was previously counsel in the same proceeding.
The key to category one is that the judge is actually disqualified from sitting in the case. Recusal is mandatory unless the parties and the judge agree otherwise, or, as some people put it, they agree to waive the disqualification.
Category Two: Discretionary Recusal
The second category of recusal matters is found in the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct in Canon 3. In contrast with the Constitution and statutory mandatory recusal, all of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct bases for recusal are hortatory; the Code recites that the judge “should” recuse in the listed circumstances if they apply.
Canon 3E(1) states the general principle: “Judges should disqualify themselves in proceedings in which their impartiality might be questioned by a reasonable person knowing all the circumstances or for other grounds provided in the Code of Judicial Conduct or otherwise as provided by law, including but not limited to instances where … ” The provision continues with several specific categories of situations that may require recusal. This is the general principle behind all recusal motions. Note the word should above. Again, in these situations recusal is discretionary and is reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion.
The specific situations spelled out to complete the above provision are:
3E(1)(a). The judge has a personal bias toward a party or has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts.
The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that, “In the absence of a judge expressing a bias or prejudice toward a party or proof in the record of such bias or prejudice, a judge should not recuse himself.” Bateman v. Gray, 963 So.2d 1284, 1291 (Miss. 2007). The burden, which is a heavy one, is on the movant to prove facts sufficient to establish disqualifying bias or prejudice.” Hodnett v. State, 787 So.2d 670 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
What about a bad outcome? Some clients thing the judge is prejudiced against them because of an adverse ruling. Our appellate courts have recognized that “[O]ne party’s irritation at the trial judge’s ruling against him is not grounds to force the judge to recuse himself.” Clay v. State, 829 So.2d 676, 687 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). “Prior rulings by a judge in the proceeding will almost never be sufficient to justify recusal.” Campbell and Jackson, Commentary on Judicial Ethics in Mississippi, § 6: 9 (2010). The United States Supreme Court addressed the principle in the case of Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994):
“ … opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings , or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Thus, judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge. They may do so if they reveal an opinion that derives from an extrajudicial source; and they will do so if they reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.”
In Rogers v. Morin, 791 So. 2d 815, 821 (¶13) (Miss. 2001), the court held that a chancellor was not required to recuse after he remarked in a hearing that he believed that the appellant had no credibility. Weighing credibility is, after all, what chancellors do. If we were required to recuse every time we made that determination, there would be chaos.
3E(1)(a). The judge or a lawyer with whom she previously practiced served as a lawyer or is a witness in the matter in controversy, or .
3E(1)(b). A lawyer as attorney or witness in the case is a former law partner or associate and served in the case while the judge was with the firm.
3E(1)(c). The judge or a member of his household has a pecuniary interest.
3E(1)(d). The judge or a member of his family is a party or is an officer, will be a witness.
You should read the Canons themselves for the exact language. A link to them is here.
There is a presumption that all judges sworn to administer impartial justice are qualified and unbiased. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Frierson, 818 So.2d 1135, 1141-42 (Miss. 2002); Miss. Code Judicial Conduct Canon 3E commentary. The burden is on the party seeking recusal to file a motion detailing the factual basis relied on, and to create a reasonable doubt about the presumption of impartiality. Taylor v. State, 789 So.2d 787 (Miss. 2001); Copeland v. Copeland, 904 So.2d 1066, 1071 (Miss. 2004). There must be a reasonable basis to form a conclusion that there was a question of impartiality. Faerber v. Faerber, 13 So.3d 853, 865-66 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). Mere speculation is not enough. Pearson v. Browning, 200 So.3d 1080, 1085 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016), citing Dillard’s, Inc. v. Scott, 908 So.2d 93, 98 (Miss. 2005) (quoting Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(E)(1)).
Rule 59 and the Court of Equity
May 28, 2019 § Leave a comment
Sometimes you want or need to argue that you should be granted R59 relief because this is a court of equity, and a new trial or rehearing, or new judgment are needed to do equity. The other side argues the rigid language of R59 and says the court can’t go beyond that.
In the case of Pevey v. Pevey, 2017-CA-01144-COA, 2018 WL 4089685 (August 28, 2018), an opinion yet unpublished in the Southern Reporter, Judge Fair (a former chancellor) of the COA wrote this in the unanimous opinion:
¶5. The chancery court’s authority to modify the final judgment is “limited” by Rule 59, and it is a “higher” standard than under Rule 54(b), which allows a trial court to set aside interlocutory decisions for any reason it sees just. [ Maness v. K & A Enters. of Miss. LLC, No. 2017-CA-00173, ––– So.3d ––––, ––––, 2018 WL 3791250, at *12 (¶ 68) (Miss. Aug. 9, 2018) Id. at –––– (¶¶ 69, 71), 2018 WL 3791250, at *13 (¶¶ 69, 71). Still, Rule 59 permits a chancery court substantial discretion to reconsider its decisions—either on the motion of a party, or sua sponte “for any reason for which it might have granted a new trial on motion of a party.” See M.R.C.P. 59(d). When a case has been tried to the court, Rule 59(a) expressly provides that a new trial may be granted “for any of the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the courts of Mississippi.” “The ground rules [for a Rule 59 motion in chancery court] include those that preexisted the Civil Rules regarding the grant or denial of trial court rehearings.” Mayoza v. Mayoza, 526 So.2d 547, 549-50 (Miss. 1988). In In re Enlargement of Corporate Limits of Hattiesburg, 588 So.2d 814, 828 (Miss.1991), the supreme court explained that “[i]n equity, the chancellor has always had entire control of his orders and decrees and authority to modify or vacate any of them on motion of any party, or on his own, prior to final judgment.” While the chancellor’s order may have been styled a final judgment, it was rendered non-final by Dallas’s filing of the motion to reconsider. See Wilson v. Mallett, 28 So.3d 669, 670 (¶ 3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). “It is long-settled that when a final judgment is reopened [under Rule 59,] the judgment remains subject to the control of the court until the motion is disposed of and, until that time, does not become final.” E.E.O.C. v. United Ass’n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. of the U.S. & Canada, Local No. 120, 235 F.3d 244, 250 (6th Cir. 2000).
¶6. To grant the motion under Rule 59, the chancery court need only be “convinced that a mistake of law or fact has been made, or that injustice would attend allowing the judgment to stand.” See Maness, ––– So.3d at –––– (¶ 69), 2018 WL 3791250, at *13 (¶ 69) (Maxwell, J., specially concurring) (quoting McNeese v. McNeese, 119 So.3d 264, 272 (¶ 20) (Miss. 2013) ). This is an independent basis for granting the motion, distinct from the court’s authority to order a new trial on the presentation of newly discovered evidence. Id. “When hearing a motion under Rule 59(e), a trial court proceeds de novo, if not ab initio. Recognizing that to err is human, Rule 59(e) provides the trial court the proverbial chance to correct its own error to the end that we may pretermit the occasion for a less than divine appellate reaction.” Bruce v. Bruce, 587 So.2d 898, 904 (Miss. 1991). A Rule 59 motion is the “functional equivalent” of a motion for rehearing on appeal. King v. King, 556 So.2d 716, 722 (Miss. 1990).
¶7. Although Rule 59(a) refers to a “new trial,” when a case was tried to the court, the formality of a full retrial is not required. Under Rule 59(a), the chancellor “may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new findings and conclusions, and direct the entry of a new judgment.” Id.
¶ 8. Motions under Rule 59 should be distinguished from motions under Rule 60(b), which seek “extraordinary relief” from a judgment that is truly final. Rule 60(b) motions are for “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” and “should be denied when they are merely an attempt to relitigate the case.” S. Healthcare Servs. Inc. v. Lloyd’s of London, 110 So.3d 735, 742 (¶ 14) (Miss. 2013). “[T]he trial court has considerably broader discretionary authority under Rule 59(e) to grant relief than it does under Rule 60(b).” King, 556 So.2d at 722.
A previous post with a citation to Pevey is at this link. The Warner v. Thomas case at that link actually cites Pevey, despite the fact that it is unpublished in the Southern Reporter. I think the best practice is always to point out that the case you are citing is unpublished in the Southern Reporter, but you can also point out that it has been cited in other published decisions if it has. Another strategy is simply to use the authority cited in the unpublished case.
I think that a regrettable by-product of the MRCP has been a pharisaical tendency toward rigid application of the rules in chancery, losing sight that chancellors bring knowledge, wisdom, judgment, and a sense of fairness to bear. When you take that away from the judge and pen her in a rule cage with no room to maneuver, you might as well do away with the judge and simply look in the rule book for the answer.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 