Friday, September 11, 2015
App List
I got an IPad a few days ago and am still experimenting with it. In the next week or so, I hope to put out a list of IPad apps which I have found useful. I have until now been an exclusive Droid user. I will say that so far Apple does have a better selection of apps especially for legal purposes.
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Failing to File Motion to Reconsider
The Mississippi Court of Appeals decided Anderson v. Anderson on Tuesday located here. Mr. Anderson challenged the chancellor's distribution of certain retirement accounts. The Court found that the issue had been waived by the trial court attorney failing to file a motion to reconsider. There is still a line of cases that say it is not necessary to file a motion to reconsider when appealing a chancery judgment. This is an issue the Mississippi Supreme Court needs to clarify at some point.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Debt Proof
The Mississippi Court of Appeals decided Norris v. Norris yesterday located here. The issue in the case was the chancellor awarded a $5000 judgment for debts allegedly incurred during the marriage to the wife. The problem, there was no proof other than testimony regarding the debt. The Court of Appeals stated:
manifestly wrong."
This looks to me like with no proof of the debt amount, testimony is insufficient. I think a Rule 1006 summary of the debt with the records attached would have remedied this problem.
"Jacqueline
did not introduce any documentary evidence to support her claim. Also, the record
before us does
not indicate that
Jacqueline filed a
financial statement, as
required by Rule 8.05 of the Uniform Chancery Court Rules. Had
she filed a Rule 8.05 statement, there may have been evidence sufficient
to support the chancellor’s finding.
However, we simply cannot find
the evidence that
would support the chancellor’s
award of “$5,000
. . . as equitable distribution
of the parties’
debt” in the
record. Indeed, there
is very little
evidence of the marital
assets and debt.
Instead, Jacqueline estimated
that Dwayne should
have contributed $3,000 for
expenses. It is
not clear why
the chancellor awarded
Jacqueline $5,000.
¶13.
Because we conclude that the chancellor’s findings are not supported by
substantial
evidence, we
must also find
that the chancellor’s
award of $5,000
to Jacqueline wasmanifestly wrong."
This looks to me like with no proof of the debt amount, testimony is insufficient. I think a Rule 1006 summary of the debt with the records attached would have remedied this problem.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
New Trial
The Mississippi Supreme Court discussed last week what is necessary in order to grant a new trial in McIlwain v. Natchez located here. “[A]
new trial becomes appropriate when a trial court determines that error within
the trial mechanism itself has caused a legally incorrect or unjust verdict to
be rendered.” White, 932 So. 2d at 33. Courts have granted new trials “whenever
convinced, from the evidence, that the jury has been partial or prejudiced, or
has not responded to reason upon the evidence produced.” Beard
v Williams, 172 Miss. 880, 884 161 So. 750, 751
(1935). A new trial may be necessary if mistakes were made in conducting the
trial or in applying the law. White,
932 So. 2d at 33. Ultimately, the Mississippi Supreme Court granted a new trial as to one of the Defendant after a hung jury.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Wrongful Death - Fringe Benefit Calculations
The Mississippi Supreme Court decided McIlwain v. Natchez Community Hospital, Inc., et. al today located here. One of the issues in the case was whether the economist could use possible fringe benefits in the calculation of the lost income of a deceased child. The Court ruled that fringe benefits cannot be calculated into the equation unless the deceased was actually receiving them.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Separate Maintenance
The Mississippi Court of Appeals decided Spotswood v. Spotswood yesterday located here. The issue in the case was what authority the court had to order a party to do anything in the absence of minor children after finding no grounds for divorce or separate maintenance. The Court of Appeals ruled that the chancery court had no authority to order the parties to do anything with no finding of divorce or separate maintenance. The husband had originally been ordered to pay one-half the mortgage and reimburse the wife for some insurance. This appears to be the correct result legally. I still see the argument from a lot that people who do not want a divorce automatically think they are entitled to separate maintenance. Does not work that way.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
IPad
Sometime in the next month or so, I am planning on starting to experiment with using an IPad at trial. Several of the trial presentation software programs appear to be what I need for the more complex trials. The Microsoft Surface tends to still be the most functional tablet for getting orders done and such. However, they still have no trial presentation software.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)