Opinion
89-R-99006-SCT
03-19-2024
IN RE: UNIFORM CHANCERY COURT RULES
ORDER
JOSIAH DENNIS COLEMAN, JUSTICE
Before the en banc Court are the Conference of Chancery Judges' Petition to Adopt Revised Uniform Chancery Court Rules Approved by the Conference on October 24,2019, and its Amended Petition to Adopt the Revised Uniform Chancery Court Rules Approved by the Conference on April 27, 2023.
The petition was referred to the Court's Advisory Committee on Rules, which responded with comments. Then, from August 18 to September 21, 2023, the amended petition was posted for comment. And as part of the Court's Rules Committee on Civil Practice and Procedure's review, it met with former Chancellor Lawrence Primeaux, Chancellor Carter O. Bise, Chancellor Cynthia Lee E. Brewer, Chancellor Gerald M. Martin, and Chancellor Crystal Wise Martin.
The Court sincerely appreciates not only the Conference's and the Advisory Committee's work but also the contributions of Chancellors Primeaux, Bise, Brewer, Martin, and Wise Martin.
After due consideration, we find that the Uniform Chancery Court Rules should be revised as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. A clean copy of the revisions is attached as Exhibit B.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Uniform Chancery Court Rules shall be revised as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. The revisions will be effective on April 18, 2024.
SO ORDERED.
AGREE: RANDOLPH, C.J., KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN AND ISHEE, JJ.
DISAGREE: GRIFFIS, J.
GRIFFIS, J., OBJECTS TO THE ORDER WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT.
GRIFFIS, JUSTICE, OBJECTING TO THE ORDER WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT:
¶1. I respectfully object to the Order Granting Petition to Adopt Revised Uniform Chancery Court Rules.
I. The changes are not ready to be finalized.
¶2. The Conference of Chancery Judges submitted two petitions to adopt revised Uniform Chancery Court Rules on October 31, 2019, and July 11, 2023. The petitions were posted for comment on August 18, 2023, and were submitted to the Supreme Court's Civil Rules Advisory Committee.
¶3. The Court's Committee on Civil Procedure has made substantial changes to the rules that have not been viewed or considered by the Conference of Chancery Judges. In my opinion, the final version that shows all proposed changes should be returned to the Conference of Chancery Judges for discussion and approval and then posted for public comment before these revised rules are adopted.
II. Some of the revisions are meaningless.
¶4. There are several revisions that, in my opinion, are simply meaningless and have no effect on chancery court practice.
a. Revision of Title from "Judge" to "Chancellor"
¶5. The petition filed by the Conference of Chancery Judges asks that this Court change their title from "judge" to "chancellor." Until now, both the Uniform Chancery Court Rules (UCCR) and the Uniform Civil Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice (UCRCCC) have consistently used the title of "judge" when referring to the presiding judicial officer. In chancery court, the presiding judicial officer is routinely called both "judge" and "chancellor." I would defer to consistency in our rules and not make this distinction in judicial officers. I am of the opinion that the presiding judicial officer is consistently referred to as "judge" in all of our rules of court. The Conference of Chancery Judges has not provided any substantial reason for this change.
b. Use of Subparagraph Letters
¶6. In these revised rules, the revisions merely divide what was previously a paragraph with several sentences into now several sub paragraphs that consist of a single sentence. This is not the proper way to format and style rules.
¶7. Also, the revisions that use subparagraphs are not consistent. Revised Rule 1.01 uses lowercase letters (a, b, c, etc.), while other revisions use large capital letters and parentheses ((A), (B), (C), etc.).
III. The revised rules do not retain consistency between the UCCR and the UCRCCC.
¶8. As discussed above, until now, several UCCR provisions were identical to UCRCCC provisions. Now, these revisions create unnecessary differences in the title of the presiding judicial officer and in other areas, which do away with the consistency of the UCCR and the UCRCCC. Here are a few examples:
a. Assignment of Cases
¶9. First, the UCCR and the UCRCCC currently have an identical rule for "Assignment of Cases." UCCR 1.06, UCRCCC 1.05A. This revision in the UCCR creates an inconsistency in these rules for no particular reason.
¶10. Of more concern, however, is that the comment has been deleted from the UCCR but the comment remains in the UCRCCC. Again, there is no particular reason for this action.
b. Discovery Deadlines
¶11. Second, the UCCR and the UCRCCC currently have an identical rule for "Discovery Deadlines." UCCR 1.10, UCRCCC 4.03. Unlike other revisions, the revisions in the UCCR actually have a meaningful and significant change. I agree with these revisions. But the same revisions should be made to the UCRCCC.
¶12. Also, the time has come that this Court should either delete the ninety day discovery rule or revise it. The ninety day discovery rule should be considered and revised in such a manner as to actually work and be enforced. This rule is routinely ignored, and this Court should now fix it.
c. Motions to Recuse
¶13. Third, the UCCR and the UCRCCC currently have an identical rule for "Motions to Recuse." UCCR 1.11, UCRCCC 1.15. The revision in the UCCR is meaningless.
d. Withdrawal from Case
¶14. Finally, the UCCR and the UCRCCC currently have a rule for the "Withdrawal of Counsel" that are almost identical. UCCR 1.08, UCRCCC 1.13. Now, this revision makes withdrawal of counsel different in chancery court as opposed to circuit or county court.
¶15. UCCR 1.08(B) revision now defines "reasonable notice" differently for chancery court. Of more concern, however, is that revised UCCR 1.08(B) now provides for another use of a Rule 81 Summons that is not authorized under Rule 81 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule now presents a concern. What is a chancellor to do if the Withdrawal of Counsel-Rule 81 Summons is properly served on a client for a motion for withdrawal of counsel, but the hearing does not occur on the date certain used in the summons? Rule 81(d)(5) provides, "[i]f such action or matter is not heard on the day set for hearing, it may by order signed on that day be continued to a later day for hearing without additional summons on the defendant or respondent." Case law provides that if such Rule 81(d)(5) order of continuance is not signed on that day, the court loses jurisdiction of the defendant. I suppose the attorney would have to either reset the hearing by order signed on that day or re-serve the Rule 81 Summons; the revised rule should address this issue. Nevertheless, this revision is not authorized by Rule 81. Also, if this is the procedure to withdraw as counsel in chancery court, it should also be the procedure in circuit and county court.
¶16. There is simply no good reason to make these changes and create inconsistencies in the UCCR and the UCRCCC. These chancery and circuit court rules should be the same.
IV. Unnecessary redundancies in the UCCR should be omitted or addressed.
a. Findings
¶17. Both the current and revised UCCR 4.01 are redundant to Rule 52(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and its advisory committee note. The revisions should delete UCCR 4.01. Rule 52(a) and its advisory committee note say the same thing. UCCR 4.01 is unnecessary.
b. Wrongful-Death Actions
¶18. UCCR Parts 6 and 8 need further attention and revision. Currently, Part 6 applies to Fiduciary Matters and Fiduciaries. The revised UCCR 6.01 adds "APPLICABILITY. This Part shall apply to all fiduciary matters, including estates, administrations, guardianships, and trusts." Then, in Part 8, UCCR 8.01 is revised to move "minors' business" from Part 6 to Part 8. This revision is confusing because now both Parts 6 and 8 will apply to "minors' business" in the compromise and settlement of a wrongful-death claim. The revisions to UCCR 6.01, 6.11, and 8.01 simply do not make sense.
c. Weapons in the Courtroom and Courthouse
¶19. There is a serious issue regarding weapons in the courtroom and courthouse. Neither the Conference of Chancery Judges nor the Court have addressed this issue. The issue should be addressed. This revision simply moves Rule 3.08 to Rule 1.03 and deletes part of 1.01. The Court has missed an opportunity to undertake a more substantive review and consideration of this important issue.
d. Abortion
¶20. In light of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215, 142 S.Ct. 2228, 213 L.Ed.2d 545 (2022), the Court should address the status of abortion law in Mississippi and consider whether Part 10-Abortion-should remain in the UCCR.
e. Conflicts
¶21. Finally, with no research, serious discussion, or input from the Conference of Chancery Judges, the Court has decided to delete Part 11. This was not part of the proposal from the Conference of Chancery Judges and has not been given any consideration or review.
V. Conclusion
¶22. I support and agree with several of the revisions made by the Court to the UCCR. I object to this order, however. I urge my distinguished colleagues to return these proposed revisions to the Supreme Court's Committee on Civil Rules for additional research, consideration, and revision.
EXHIBIT A
(Exhibit A Omitted)