Making Your Legal Life Easier

July 6, 2015 § 1 Comment

It’s no secret that the legal profession is one of the most stressful there is. Stress takes its toll in the form of burnout, substance abuse, failing relationships, depression, and even suicide.

The way that you practice law can add to or alleviate your stress. Here are a few things you can do to make your legal life easier:

  • Avoid putting yourself in difficult situations. Answer the discovery early. You can always supplement it later to make it meet your exacting standards. Don’t keep putting things off until you face three or four simultaneous, crushing deadlines. Deal with unpleasant things first, so you can give your attention to and enjoy dealing with the pleasant ones.
  • Forgive yourself. You are your own worst critic. If you err or even fail, pick yourself up and dust yourself off, analyze what you did wrong, fix it as best you can, and move on to the next thing. And quit beating yourself up about it.
  • Schedule sanely. No one can or should try a contested divorce on Monday and Tuesday, with a break for an hour Tuesday to argue a motion in county court, then a contested probated claim Wednesday morning, followed by depositions Wednesday afternoon. Then six appointments Thursday morning, with three Social Security hearings Thursday afternoon. And winding up the week with a temporary hearing and a contempt two counties distant. Give yourself some time to breathe. You are not Superman or Wonderwoman.
  • Let your secretaries be your shock absorbers. Don’t avoid your clients; they need to communicate with you. By all means, return your phone calls, but don’t let them interrupt you every few minutes with a barrage of what-ifs and speculation. Manage your own time; don’t let it manage you.
  • Underpromise and overdeliver. Temper your clients’ expectations with reality. Never promise what you know you can’t accomplish, and then blame it on the judge or that scoundrel attorney on the other side. When you tell your clients that, realistically, they have an uphill climb to modify custody, but you will give it your best shot, they not only will appreciate your candor, but, if you prevail they will marvel at your legal skill; if you don’t, they at least understand why.
  • Be objective. It’s your client’s battle, not yours. Don’t let it get personal. You are there to represent your client, not to be your client’s alter ego. That lawyer on the other side is your opponent in this case, not your personal enemy.
  • Get organized. Put systems in place to help you deal with your business in a rational manner. The more haphazard and disorganized you are, the more you will have to deal with the unexpected and overwhelming.

July 3, 2015 § Leave a comment

State Holiday.

Courthouse closed.

The Courthouses of Mississippi

July 2, 2015 § Leave a comment

Tate -Leon Hannaford

Tate -Leon Hannaford

Copiah - Joey Norton

Copiah – Joey Norton

Copiah - Joey Norton

Copiah – Joey Norton

Jefferson - Bennett Wilson

Jefferson – Bennett Wilson

Marshall - Beverly Kraft

Marshall – Beverly Kraft

Pontotoc - Beverly Kraft

Pontotoc – Beverly Kraft

Prentiss - Beverly Kraft

Prentiss – Beverly Kraft

Sharkey - Beverly Kraft

Sharkey – Beverly Kraft

Tishomingo - Beverly Kraft

Tishomingo – Beverly Kraft

Boatwright is Dry-Docked

June 30, 2015 § 10 Comments

The legal travails of Toulman and Grace Boatwright have been chronicled here before.

To bring you up to date, this is the case in which: (1) a chancellor recused before ruling on a R59 motion; (2) the remaining chancellor refused to rule on the motion; (3) there was an appeal; (4) the COA reversed on the basis that the second chancellor should have ruled on the motion; (5) on remand the second chancellor recused, and a special chancellor took up the case and ruled on the R59 motion; (6) Toulman appealed again; (7) five (yes, 5) judges of the COA recused (if you’re counting, that’s seven recusals in this saga); and (8) the COA affirmed in Boatwright v. Boatwright, handed down June 23, 2015.

It seems a shame to draw the curtain closed on this epic, which arose in 2004, more than eleven years ago. (Of course, if cert is granted …)

Judges Carlton, Lee, and Irving would have granted a new trial, which would have kept this case going for perhaps an additional eleven years (optimistically speaking).

In case you’re trying to diagram this: McGehee wrote the prevailing opinion, in which Griffis, and Ishee joined; Carlton, Lee, and Irving dissented. Barnes, Roberts, Maxwell, Fair, and James did not participate. A 3-3 tie is an affirmance.

On the serious side, both the majority opinion, written by Special Judge McGehee, and the dissent, penned by Judge Carlton, address some weighty issues of judicial ethics arising out of the social relationships between attorneys and judges. This particular case came to grief when the chancellor accepted an invitation to go turkey hunting with one of the lawyers involved in the Boatwright litigation while the case was pending. Both opinions discuss the ethical considerations involved and their ramifications.

As with many ethical questions, there are not only murky areas, but different people in good faith can see things differently and draw different conclusions, as was the case here.

What is sometimes difficult to see is where to draw the line. In the Guardianship of McClinton case decided only last February by the COA, the court brushed aside attorney Michael Brown’s argument that the judge had an improper social relationship with another attorney in the case because the judge frequently had lunch with that attorney and they attended college football games together. For those of us here on the ground, it can be hard to draw distinctions so as to arrive at a firm idea of appropriate conduct.

The main thing is for us all to take to heart the serious ethical implications involved in the social interactions between lawyers and judges, and to be sensitive to them. It’s absolutely true that litigants, their families and friends, and passers-by are watching everything we do and drawing their own conclusions.

Where do we go from Here?

June 29, 2015 § 1 Comment

SCOTUS has spoken in Obergefell v. Hodges, handed down last Friday, making it unlawful for any state to refuse to issue licenses for same-sex marriage (SSM) to persons applying within the state, and making it unlawful for any state to refuse to recognize SSM that was performed legally in another jurisdiction. That pretty well wipes out Mississippi’s position on the issue.

There is a hiccup in Mississippi, however, in that the AG takes the position that, until the 5th Circuit lifts the stay imposed by US Dist. Judge Carlton Reeves in the litigation challenging Mississippi’s law that is on appeal in New Orleans, Mississippi may not issue marriage licenses for SSM.

After that is resolved, however, what impact will Obergefell have on family law in Mississippi? Here are a few of my own opinions:

  • Ferguson will still govern equitable distribution, Albright will still govern child custody, the statutes and Huseth will still govern child support, and so on and so on. For the life of me, I do not see any substantive issues that will not be resolved by the familiar substantive rules that are already in place.
  • Likewise, our procedures remain the same. Only the gender of the parties is different.
  • I heard some lawyers Friday opining that chancery courts need to brace for a flood of divorces from SSM. I don’t get that logic. Oh, I am sure there will be some, but there have to be the marriages first, and my impression is that most gays in Mississippi have been awaiting this development rather than going to other states for SSM, since that other-state marriage would not be recognized under our law anyway.

I think this decision will have the same kind of aftermath as Roe v. Wade. That 1973 case (that’s 42 years ago, for the math-challenged) spawned legislation and litigation that continue to this day as opponents try to probe for a way around it or to ascertain its limits, and proponents try to enforce it. Both Obergefell and Roe v. Wade are substantive due process cases, and those just take longer people to accept, if they ever do.

As with Roe v. Wade, this latest case involves issues that sound in morality and religious teaching, rendering compromise and accommodation much less likely. the role of SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution, not the Bible. We all know that, and I, for one, prefer for SCOTUS and the other two branches of government to stay out of the Bible-interpretation business. Still, when cases like this fall in that overlap area, they spawn a lot of consternation among the citizenry.

Oh, and as a chancellor, it is my role to apply the law as I am presented with it. That I will do. I have read the majority opinion and the dissents, so I know what is required of me.

As lawyers, you will represent your clients. Those who benefit from the decision whom you take on as clients, as well as those who challenge it.

I have to confess that I was a little surprised at the scope of the decision. I thought the court would say that states must recognize the legal marriages of other states, but that the rules of marriage would be left to the states. That proves, among other things, that I am no constitutional-law scholar.

So, these are my preliminary thoughts. It will be interesting to look back at this 42 years hence — in the unlikely event that I’m still around.

The Courthouses of Mississippi

June 26, 2015 § 3 Comments

Thanks, I now have them all.

Washington - Drew Tominello

Washington – Drew Tominello

Issaquena - Beverly Kraft

Issaquena – Beverly Kraft

Issaquena - Beverly Kraft

Issaquena – Beverly Kraft

Lincoln - Michael Gleason

Lincoln – Michael Gleason

Lee - Beverly Kraft

Lee – Beverly Kraft

Panola at Sardis - Helen Kelly

Panola at Sardis – Helen Kelly

Oktibbeha Circuit - Beverly Kraft

Oktibbeha Circuit – Beverly Kraft

Oktibbeha Chancery - Sandra Jackson

Oktibbeha Chancery – Sandra Jackson


Pike - Lauren Foreman

Pike – Lauren Foreman

Pike - Lauren Foreman

Pike – Lauren Foreman

Lawrence - Robert Evans

Lawrence – Robert Evans






Reprise: Lost Wills

June 25, 2015 § 2 Comments

Reprise replays posts from the past that you might find useful today.


January 5, 2011 § 3 Comments

Does it ever happen to you that an heir shows up in your office and says something to the effect that “Mom says you kept the original of dad’s will. All we have is this [dogeared, coffee-stained, footprinted] copy,” and hands you a bedraggled handful of papyrus?  Well, if it hasn’t, it will.

Of course, you did not retain the original [for you younger attorneys: NEVER keep the original of your client’s will]. So what will you do with this forlorn sheaf?

You will probate it. Yes, probate it.  But it’s only a copy, you say; and the original will is required to be produced (See, MCA § 91-7-5, -7 and -31).  True.  But it is possible to probate a lost or destroyed will.

In the case of Estate of Mitchell, 623 So.2d 274, 275 (Miss. 1993), the court said:

The law regarding admission into probate of a lost will is discussed at length in Warren v. Sidney’s Estate, 183 Miss. 669, 184 So. 806 (1938). Sidney’s Estate sets forth the elements necessary to probate a copy of a lost will are: (1) the proof of the existence of the will; (2) evidence of its loss or destruction; and (3) proof of its contents. Sidney’s Estate, 183 Miss. at 675-76, 184 So. at 807. A fourth element has been added: (4) that the testator did not destroy the will with the intent to revoke it. Robert A. Weems, Wills and Estates § 7-17, p. 216 (1983). This last element, which is most central to this case, arose from the theory that when a will cannot be found following the death of a testator and it can be shown that the testator was the last person in possession of the will, there arises a rebuttable presumption of revocation.

Where a will which cannot be found following the death of the testator is shown to have been in his possession when last seen, the presumption is, in the absence of other evidence, that he destroyed it animo revocandi … 57 Am.Jur., Wills, § 551.  Adams v. Davis, 233 Miss. 228, 237, 102 So.2d 190, 193 (1958); Phinizee v. Alexander, 210 Miss. 196, 200, 49 So.2d 250, 252 (1950); Horner, Probate Prac. & Est. § 79 (4th ed.). This presumption extends to all duplicate copies, even executed duplicates. Adams, 233 Miss. at 237, 102 So.2d at 194; Phinizee, 210 Miss. at 199, 49 So.2d at 252; Horner § 79.

The proponent of the will must prove each of these elements by clear and convincing evidence. See Estate of Leggett v. Smith, 584 So.2d 400, 403 (Miss.1991); Estate of Willis v. Willis, 207 So.2d 348, 349 (Miss.1968); Adams, 233 Miss. at 237-38, 102 So.2d at 194. (“The intent to revoke must appear clearly and unequivocally.” Sidney’s Estate, 183 Miss. at 676, 184 So. at 807. “The policy of the law requires such contents to be established by the clearest, most convincing and satisfactory proof.” Robert A. Weems, Wills and Estates § 7-17, p. 216 (1983).

Your petition will have to recite on personal knowledge of the petitioner, or supported by affidavits on personal knowledge, all four of the required factors.

You should probate the lost or destroyed will in solemn form.  To do otherwise gives an unfair advantage to the proponent of the missing document.  Probate in solemn form also seals off the protests of other interested parties and, as a practical matter, takes you directly to the hearing with notice that you will likely wind up in anyway.

At hearing, you will need to prove your four elements by clear and convincing evidence.

  • Proving the existence of the will is not usually much of a problem.  You will have that copy, or, if no copy is available, someone with personal knowledge can testify that the will did exist.  MRE 1001-1008 would appear to govern the issue.  As Rule 1008 states, the issue is for the trier of fact to determine.
  • Loss of the will can be proven by testimony that the decedent kept his or her papers in a particular place and that an exhaustive search has not turned it up, or that the cabinet where the will was kept was destroyed by fire, or that it was in a repository that has now vanished.
  • The “Dead Man’s Statute” has been supplanted by MRE 803(3), so proof of its contents should not be a major obstacle, so long as there is a witness with personal knowledge.
  • And the same hearsay exception would apply to the testator’s destruction or intended revocation.

An interesting wrinkle appears in an ancient case, Vining v. Hall, 40 Miss. 83 (Miss. Err. & App. 1866), that is still good law.  In Vining, there was conflicting and inconclusive testimony about the contents of the lost or destroyed will, but no disagreement that it included a revocation clause expressly revoking all prior wills.  The court held that the revocation clause was effective despite the fact that the dispositive terms of the will could not be determined.  See, Weems, Wills and Administration of Estates in Mississippi, Third Ed., § 7.15.

Courthouses Yet to be Seen

June 23, 2015 § Leave a comment

We are in the final stretch of the courthouses project.

Here are the ones for which I still do not have a photo: Tishomingo; Prentiss; Pontotoc; Marshall; Tate; Panola at Sardis; Oktibbeha; Yazoo; Warren; Sharkey; Issaquena, Washington; Jefferson; Lincoln; Lawrence; Pike; Walthall; and Wilkinson.

If you have a photo, email it to


Does a Custody Decision Have to Pass Through Joint Custody?

June 22, 2015 § 2 Comments

We’ve talked here before about the principle that, where the parties have consented to allow the chancellor to adjudicate custody, the chancellor may award either party custody, and may award joint custody. That was decided by the MSSC in Crider v. Crider in 2012, and has been elaborated on in cases applying it since.

Does Crider, then, require the chancellor to consider whether joint custody should be awarded before awarding either party sole custody? That was the issue confronting the COA in the case of White v. White, decided June 16, 2015.

Maegan White and Christopher White consented to an irreconcilable differences divorce, with custody of their children, Garrett and Harley, as a contested issue. The chancellor accepted the recommendation of the GAL and awarded sole custody to Christopher, and her opinion made no mention of the possibility or consideration of joint custody. Meagan appealed, arguing that the chancellor’s failure to consider joint custody was error. She contended that Crider and Clark v. Clark, 126 So.3d 122 (Miss. App. 2013) required the judge to consider whether joint custody was in the best interest of the children.

Judge Roberts addressed her argument for the COA:

¶19. Maegan’s interpretation of both Clark and Crider is faulty. In Clark, this Court reversed and remanded a chancellor’s decision to award sole physical custody to the mother, requiring the court to consider the propriety of joint custody on remand. Both parents had requested sole physical custody of their child and submitted the issue to the court for determination. After hearing testimony of the parties, the chancellor had noted: “[In these] kinds of cases . . . it’s hard . . . to give the child to one or the other because everything here would support that. . . . [H]ow can you choose one over the other, but [this court] has to.” Clark, 126 So. 3d at 124-25 (¶10). In reversing the chancery court’s judgment, this Court noted, “Based on our reading of the transcript, it appears that the chancery court may have concluded . . . that it was required to order custody to one parent regardless of whether joint physical custody was in the best interest of [the child].” Id. at 125 (¶12). Noting our concern that the chancery court had incorrectly concluded it was not authorized to consider joint custody, as neither party had requested it, we reversed and remanded for further consideration.

¶20. Similarly, in Crider, parents in an irreconcilable-differences divorce each requested sole custody of their child. The parents submitted the issue of custody to the court for determination. After considering testimony presented and conducting an Albright analysis, the chancellor found that, even though neither parent requested joint custody, it was in the child’s best interest. Thus, she awarded joint custody to the parents for a two-year period. The mother appealed, noting that Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-24(2) (Rev. 2013) [footnote omitted] prohibited a chancellor from awarding joint custody unless specifically requested by the parties. This Court agreed and reversed the chancellor’s judgment, prompting the father to petition for certiorari with the supreme court. After a thorough analysis of the statute and its meaning, the supreme court stated:

It is logical and reasonable that “application of both parties” exists when both parties consent to allowing the court to determine custody. The fact that the parties request that the court determine which parent is to receive “primary custody” does not alter this. The parties are allowing the court to determine what form of custody is in the best interest of the child. If joint custody is determined to be in the best interest of the child using court-specified factors, i.e., the Albright factors, the parties should not be able to prohibit this by the wording of the consent.

Crider, 904 So. 2d at 147 (¶12). The supreme court further noted that the chancellor is in the best position to evaluate the “credibility, sincerity, capabilities and intentions of the parties,” and that it is “incumbent upon a chancellor not to award joint custody” unless in the best interest of the child. Id. at (¶13). The court ultimately held that “when parties consent in writing to the court’s determination of custody, they are consenting and agreeing to that determination and this meets the statutory directive of ‘joint application’ in [section] 93-5-24(2).” Id. at 148 (¶15). Finally, the court affirmed the chancellor’s judgment and noted that a “chancellor may award joint custody in an [irreconcilable-differences] divorce, when the parties request the court to determine custody.” Id. at 148-49 (¶17) (emphasis added).

¶21. Maegan incorrectly interprets both Clark and Crider to require a chancellor to consider joint custody when faced with an irreconcilable-differences divorce. The chancellor “is bound to consider the child’s best interest above all else.” Riley v. Doerner, 677 So. 2d 740, 744 (Miss. 1996). In both Clark and Crider, the chancellors found joint custody to be in the child’s best interest. In Clark, the chancellor incorrectly awarded sole custody to one parent despite the finding that joint custody was the child’s best interest; in Crider, the chancellor awarded joint custody because that was in the child’s best interest, and the supreme court affirmed that award. Crider and its progeny allow—not require—a chancellor to award joint custody when in the best interest of the child. In the present case, the chancellor found that it was in Garrett and Harley’s best interest to give custody to [Christopher]. Though the chancellor’s order makes no mention of joint custody, he is not required to do so. The chancellor’s primary duty is to consider the best interests of the children and make a determination of custody based on that concern. There is no evidence that the chancellor disregarded the children’s best interests when determining custody. The chancellor’s custody award to [Christopher] was not error.

Not much to add to that, except to cite you to this post on Easley v. Easley, and this one with some random thoughts on joint custody, which might make your collection of authorities on this point complete.


The Courthouses of Mississippi

June 19, 2015 § Leave a comment

Bolivar at Cleveland - Beverly Kraft

Bolivar at Cleveland – Beverly Kraft

Bolivar at Rosedale - Beverly Kraft

Bolivar at Rosedale – Beverly Kraft

Winston - LP

Winston – LP

Jones at Ellisville - Kathy Wilkinson

Jones at Ellisville – Kathy Wilkinson

Clay - Beverly Kraft

Clay – Beverly Kraft

carroll glenn huggins

Carroll at Carrollton – Glenn Huggins

Coahoma - Beverly Kraft

Coahoma – Beverly Kraft

Jefferson Davis - Kathy Wilkinson

Jefferson Davis – Kathy Wilkinson

Franklin - Beverly Kraft

Franklin – Beverly Kraft

Copiah - Beverly Kraft

Copiah – Beverly Kraft





Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 508 other followers