Friday, January 15, 2016
Apps of Interest
In some recent litigation, I have been using TrialPad and TranscriptPad from Apple. The TrialPad worked beautifully in a medical malpractice trial and worked much better than the high priced software the defense attorney was using. TranscriptPad has been helpful in reviewing depositions late at night. Additionally, the issue codes make for deposition summaries immediately at the end if you need them which saves a lot of time.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Alienation of Affection - Statute of Limitations
The Mississippi Court of Appeals decided Anderson v. Lander on Tuesday located here. The interesting issue in the case was whether the 3 year statute of limitation ran from the date the divorce was filed or the date the parties stopped having a relationship. Apparently, the parties got back together after the divorce was filed. The Court of Appeals found that the statute started to run the date they finally separated. This makes sense as how can the affection be alienated if you keep coming back?
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
The Unsold House
I have had a rash of cases in the past few months where the parties agree to sell the marital home and then they cannot find a buyer. What happens when it is not sold? A property settlement agreement really needs to address this. The best solution I have come up with is to add a provision to allow the trial court to retain jurisdiction if it is not sold in a particular time frame to determine how one parties equity may be obtained. Without this provision, there is still some cases that say this is property division and may not be modifiable.
Monday, January 11, 2016
Natural Parent Case
Last Thursday, the Mississippi Supreme Court decided Wilson v. Davis located here. The case came to the Court on cert from the Court of Appeals. The factual history can be located from the opinion. The most interesting part of the opinion is that the Court seems to indicate that "exceptional circumstances" are needed as opposed to a basis to overcome the natural parent presumption plus best interest analysis.
Friday, January 8, 2016
MVLP Income Guidelines
I still do a good bit of pro bono work through the Mississippi Volunteer Lawyer's Project. Below is their income guidelines in the event a client may qualify.
Family Size
200% of Poverty
1: $23,540.00
2: $31,860.00
3: $40,180.00
4: $48,500.00
5: $56,820.00
6: $65,140.00
7: $73,460.00
8: $81,780.00
For family units of more than 8 members, add $4,160 for each additional member.
Family Size
200% of Poverty
1: $23,540.00
2: $31,860.00
3: $40,180.00
4: $48,500.00
5: $56,820.00
6: $65,140.00
7: $73,460.00
8: $81,780.00
For family units of more than 8 members, add $4,160 for each additional member.
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Extension of Time on Service of Process
On Tuesday, the Mississippi Court of Appeals decided Darville v. Mejia located here. The case did an in depth discussion of what is necessary in order to get an extension of time for service of process. In this case, the defendant moved around a lot and detailed information was given to show what attempts were made for service of process. This is a good place to start any research on this issue.
Monday, January 4, 2016
Tennessee Accident Case
In Hall v. Owens, No. W2014-02214-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2015), the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff ran a red light and turned in front of defendant’s truck. As plaintiff approached an intersection, he had a red arrow for turning left. Defendant was approaching the same intersection driving a tractor-trailer truck, and defendant had a green light. Despite the red arrow, plaintiff proceeded into the intersection and turned left, at which time he was hit by defendant’s truck and severely injured.
The trial court and the Tennessee Court of Appeals found that this conduct amounted to 50% fault as a matter of law. In Tennessee since the Plaintiff was at least 50% at fault, there could be no recovery.
The trial court and the Tennessee Court of Appeals found that this conduct amounted to 50% fault as a matter of law. In Tennessee since the Plaintiff was at least 50% at fault, there could be no recovery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)