POST-TRIAL MOTIONS: ROUND THREE
March 23, 2011 § 3 Comments
I’ve posted here about the necessity to file post-trial motions to preserve error in chancery court, and how the COA’s January 25, 2011, decision in Robinson v. Brown may have changed our traditional practice. Then the COA stayed the mandate and we awaited a new decision.
The new Robinson v. Brown opinion was issued yesterday, March 22, 2011, and in my judgment we are back exactly where we started: You’d better file those post-trial motions if you expect to raise an issue on appeal.
Although the new opinion actually addresses and analyzes the sufficiency of the chancellor’s findings, the court states at ¶ 23 that, “In this case, we likewise find the challenge of the chancellor’s findings in the instant case procedurally barred.” The two cases cited in support of the point are distinguishable both on their facts and their procedural posture, but no matter. The COA is determined to interpret MRCP 52(b) in its own way.
I have other fish to fry, so I don’t really have the time or energy to devote to breaking this down further. Besides, I am out of the appeal business. It’s lawyers like you who have to deal with this.
If the supreme court will take this case on cert and look closely at it, perhaps our supreme chancellor, Justice Pierce, will be afforded the opportunity to elucidate this for us. If I were still practicing law in chancery court I would certainly want the point clarified for the sake of my clients and my malpractice insurance premiums.
In the meantime, I stand by my earlier suggestion to file those post-trial motions raising every conceivable point possible that you may wish to raise on appeal. If you don’t you may find yourself “procedurally barred” in the COA.
THE LATEST ON ROBINSON V. BROWN
February 16, 2011 § 4 Comments
The COA case of Robinson v. Brown, handed down January 25, was the subject of a previous post in which I alerted chancery lawyers that the case appeared to change the law that post-trial motions were not required in chancery court to preserve error for appeal. I also pointed out that MRCP 52(b) specifically excepts non-jury trials from the post-trial motion requirement.
In the COA’s handdowns on February 15, this entry appeared:
EN BANC
2009-CA-01599-COA
Mary Elizabeth Brown Robinson v. Paul Arthur Brown
Lee Chancery Court; LC Case #: 02-0518(41)H; Ruling Date: 08/06/2009; Ruling Judge: John Hatcher; Disposition: The Court on its own motion stays the mandate and grants rehearing. Order entered.
Is the COA going to circle back to where we were pre-January 25? Stay tuned.
YOU’D BETTER FILE THOSE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS AFTER ALL
January 27, 2011 § 9 Comments
Back on November 16, 2010, I posted here that you don’t have to file a motion for a new trial in chancery non-jury trials to preserve error for an appeal. As I pointed out, it has never been the law in chancery court that such a motion was necessary, and MRCP 52(b) would appear to dispose of the issue. I do believe that was an accurate statement of the law in chancery court.
Until Tuesday, January 25, 2011.
On that date, the court of appeals handed down its decision in Robinson v. Brown, in which the appellant attempted to argue that it was error for the chancellor to assess her with child support because she claimed that he had failed to make the appropriate findings of fact. Justice Carlton’s opinion, to which there was no dissent, holds at ¶ 18 that the appellant:
” … failed to assert this alleged error post trial to the chancellor, and such failure waived her right to now complain as to this issue on appeal. Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 52 allows the court to amend its findings, or make additional findings, upon motion of a party filed not later than ten days after the entry of a judgment or entry of findings and conclusions of law. Watts v. State, 492 So.2d 1281, 1291 (Miss. 1986) (appellant was procedurally barred from raising an issue on appeal where he failed to raise it in his post-trial motion).”
The only case cited to support the point is a criminal case from circuit court, presumably from a jury trial.
The opinion does not mention MRCP 52(b), which specifically states:
When findings of fact are made in actions tried by the court without a jury, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings may thereafter be raised regardless of whether the party raising the question has made in court an objection to such findings or has filed a motion to amend them or a motion for judgment or a motion for a new trial.
Would that exact language not apply in this case since the appellant was complaining that the trial court’s ruling was not supported by sufficient evidence? And, as with nearly all chancery court cases, this was a case “tried by the court without a jury.”
The lone justice with chancery experience on the court of appeals, Justice Myers, is listed as “not participating.”
Practice Tip: For chancery practitioners, I believe that this decision means that from now on you had better file a post-trial motion in every case if you have any thought of an appeal, and you’d better list every error you think might be in the record.
For chancellors, this will mean an abundance more work, on top of the lengthy opinions we are required to write to pass scrutiny of the appellate courts.
There’s a lot I could say about this, but I guess I’d better not. If you want my views, drop by my office and we’ll talk.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 