Defense Expert’s Attack on the Collateral Source Rule Falling Short

The collateral source rule can be summarized by stating “[c]ompensation or indemnity for the loss received by plaintiff from a collateral source, wholly independent of the wrongdoer, as from insurance, cannot be set up by the [defendant] in mitigation or reduction of damages….” Coker v. Five-Two Taxi Serv., 211 Miss. 820, 826, 52 So.2d 356, 357 (1951). “[A] tortfeasor cannot use the moneys of others (insurance companies, gratuitous gifts, etc.) to reduce the cost of its own wrongdoing.” Brandon HMA v. Bradshaw, 809 So. 2d 611, 618 (Miss. 2001).

The Mississippi Supreme Court has applied the collateral source rule to:

  • Payments by Medicare.  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Frierson, 818 So. 2d 1135 (Miss. 2002).
  • Payments by Medicaid.  Brandon HMA v. Bradshaw, 809 So. 2d 611 (Miss. 2001).
  • Amounts “written off” by a non related medical provider.  Purdon v. Locke, 807 So. 2d 373 (Miss. 2001)

However, the collateral source rule does not apply to amounts written off by the tortfeasor.  McGee v. River Region Medical Center, 59 So. 3d 575 (Miss. 2011).  A plaintiff can open the door to collateral source evidence by testifying to a lack of funds to pay for treatment. Geske v. Williamson, 945 So. 2d 429, 435 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). Likewise “when a witness falsely swears that he or she paid, as opposed to incurred, medical expenses when, in fact, the medical expenses were paid by a third party” the court may allow a defendant to cross examine a plaintiff regarding collateral sources. Robinson Prop. Group, L.P. v. Mitchell, 7 So. 3d 240, 245 (Miss. 2009).

Despite the fact that Mississippi has uniformly followed the collateral source rule, defendants and their expert witnesses continue in their attempts to circumvent the rule.  The most recent attempt involves expert witness John Schneider, Ph.D.

Dr. Schneider claims to apply a health economics methodology to determine a weighted average of healthcare prices actually transacted in the market.  Sartin v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 1:14-cv-00003-HSO-RHW at page 17 (S.D. Miss. June 5, 2015).  In Sartin, use of Dr. Schneider’s “reasonable value” calculation reduced plaintiff’s life care plan from over $2.1 million in charges down to $590,588.

Although Dr. Schneider artfully avoids referencing insurance or any other collateral source in his Report, his methodology for determining the reasonable value of Plaintiff’s medical care would violate Mississippi’s collateral source rule.  Dr. Schneider’s methodology differentiates between expected charges for services as opposed to reasonable value or actual cost to a patient.

Sartin v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 1:14-cv-00003-HSO-RHW at page 23 (S.D. Miss. June 5, 2015).  The Court went on to state that “Dr. Schneider’s opinions on the reasonable value or medical care are therefore unreliable and irrelevant.”  Id.  

Judge Ozerden was again confronted with Dr. Schneider in the case of Williams v. Manitowoc Cranes, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3553, (S.D. Miss. January 12, 2016).  The result was the same.  “Dr. Schneider’s methodology as applied to this particular case represents a backdoor attempt to give Defendant the benefit of any type of write-off from the actual hospital charges…”  Id. at pages 11-12.  “Dr. Schneider seeks to confer the benefit of any payment or write-off from a third party on the Defendant instead of the Plaintiff.  The collateral source rule as it has been interpreted by the Mississippi Supreme Court prohibits this result.”  Id. a 12.

While Dr. Schneider and defendants disagree on principle, the public policy behind the collateral source rule is quite simple.  “If there is a windfall from which one is to benefit, the injured plaintiff and not the tortfeasor should receive that windfall.”  Chickaway v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110602, *7, 2012 WL 3236518 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 7, 2012).

 

Advertisements

Another First

Firsts of anything have always been memorable to me whether it was my first dog, girlfriend, school, gun, whitetail deer, 10 pound bass or whatever.

Practicing law is no different.  I remember back to my first divorce trial, first injury trial, first win and unfortunately, my first loss.  The older I get, the occurrence of firsts is significantly less frequent, but they do still occur.

This morning I experienced another first.  It was the first time in 16 plus years and several hundred attempts that I have walked into the Hinds County Chancery Courthouse in Jackson and passed through the metal detector without hearing a beep.

I was so accustomed to the beep that I had already walked forward and lifted my arms for the deputy with the handheld metal detector.  I am not certain who was more surprised, me not hearing the beep or the deputy looking at my outstretched hands which probably appeared to him like I wanted a hug.  When I told him it was the first time in 16 years that the metal detector hadn’t beeped, he laughed and checked to make sure it was still functioning.  It was.  Here’s to another first.  Good Lord willing, hopefully I will experience a few  more.1st

Think before you send.

Some 10+ years ago a defense lawyer as young as I was filed a motion in limine a few days before trial.  Most of it was baseless and by my estimation designed to either get a few more billable hours in or distract me from trial preparation.  Nevertheless, I had to respond to it.  So on a Friday afternoon, I went item by item and responded in a dignified manner…..until I got to the last item.

Plaintiff should be precluded from arguing that defendant is represented by a powerful big city law firm.

Sure enough, the defendant was represented by a law firm much larger than mine.  Most every defendant is.  They had 50+ lawyers in offices in Jackson and a few other places around the southeast.  However, in the whole scheme of things this defense lawyer was not from a big city and his firm’s power was suspect even then (the firm doesn’t exist today).  Rather than simply agreeing not to bring up the subject, I replied with a Friday afternoon snark.

Plaintiff’s counsel agrees not to comment of the defendant being represented by a powerful big city law firm as same would be untrue.

As is advised by legal writing experts, I have since axed the word “same” from my writing, but this was 10+ years ago.  I mailed off the response and went about my weekend.  After closing arguments and while waiting for the jury verdict, the senior partner defending the case remarked that my response wasn’t very gentlemanlike.  He was correct, and I apologized to him.  Since that day, I have made it a policy to always let a response sit for a day after drafting prior to sending it out.

A similar policy would have well served Mississippi House of Representative member Jeffrey Guice of Ocean Springs this week.  A Richland mother, Nicole Nichols, wrote Guice seeking help with the Medicaid system for her diabetic daughter.  Guice’s response:

13537745_1702424976684863_439688363568522985_n (1)

I don’t know Guice.  Maybe he is rude to everyone or maybe Ms. Nichols simply caught him on a bad day at a bad time.  Either way, Guice would do well to follow Seth Godin’s email checklist:

Email checklist

Before you hit send on that next email, perhaps you should run down this list, just to be sure:

  1. Is it going to just one person? (If yes, jump to #10)
  2. Since it’s going to a group, have I thought about who is on my list?
  3. Are they blind copied?
  4. Did every person on the list really and truly opt in? Not like sort of, but really ask for it?
  5. So that means that if I didn’t send it to them, they’d complain about not getting it?
  6. See #5. If they wouldn’t complain, take them off!
  7. That means, for example, that sending bulk email to a list of bloggers just cause they have blogs is not okay.
  8. Aside: the definition of permission marketing: Anticipated, personal and relevant messages delivered to people who actually want to get them. Nowhere does it say anything about you and your needs as a sender. Probably none of my business, but I’m just letting you know how I feel. (And how your prospects feel).
  9. Is the email from a real person? If it is, will hitting reply get a note back to that person? (if not, change it please).
  10. Have I corresponded with this person before?
  11. Really? They’ve written back? (if no, reconsider email).
  12. If it is a cold-call email, and I’m sure it’s welcome, and I’m sure it’s not spam, then don’t apologize. If I need to apologize, then yes, it’s spam, and I’ll get the brand-hurt I deserve.
  13. Am I angry? (If so, save as draft and come back to the note in one hour).
  14. Could I do this note better with a phone call?
  15. Am I blind-ccing my boss? If so, what will happen if the recipient finds out?
  16. Is there anything in this email I don’t want the attorney general, the media or my boss seeing? (If so, hit delete).
  17. Is any portion of the email in all caps? (If so, consider changing it.)
  18. Is it in black type at a normal size?
  19. Do I have my contact info at the bottom? (If not, consider adding it).
  20. Have I included the line, “Please save the planet. Don’t print this email”? (If so, please delete the line and consider a job as a forest ranger or flight attendant).
  21. Could this email be shorter?
  22. Is there anyone copied on this email who could be left off the list?
  23. Have I attached any files that are very big? (If so, google something like ‘send big files’ and consider your options.)
  24. Have I attached any files that would work better in PDF format?
  25. Are there any 🙂 or other emoticons involved? (If so, reconsider).
  26. Am I forwarding someone else’s mail? (If so, will they be happy when they find out?)
  27. Am I forwarding something about religion (mine or someone else’s)? (If so, delete).
  28. Am I forwarding something about a virus or worldwide charity effort or other potential hoax? (If so, visit snopes and check to see if it’s ‘actually true).
  29. Did I hit ‘reply all’? If so, am I glad I did? Does every person on the list need to see it?
  30. Am I quoting back the original text in a helpful way? (Sending an email that says, in its entirety, “yes,” is not helpful).
  31. If this email is to someone like Seth, did I check to make sure I know the difference between its and it’s? Just wondering.
  32. If this is a press release, am I really sure that the recipient is going to be delighted to get it? Or am I taking advantage of the asymmetrical nature of email–free to send, expensive investment of time to read or delete?
  33. Are there any little animated creatures in the footer of this email? Adorable kittens? Endangered species of any kind?
  34. Bonus: Is there a long legal disclaimer at the bottom of my email? Why?
  35. Bonus: Does the subject line make it easy to understand what’s to come and likely it will get filed properly?
  36. If I had to pay 42 cents to send this email, would I?

 

Pro Se Party Wins His Divorce Appeal

Chancery Court can be difficult even for lawyers.  Things that appear insignificant can suddenly hit you like a sledge hammer on the pinky toe.  A party without benefit of legal counsel is at a significant disadvantage.  That doesn’t mean that self represented parties never win or the court disfavors them, but it is rare for a pro se party to succeed.

Dwayne Norris, representing himself, recently bucked the odds and prevailed in the appeal of his divorce case.  The facts underlying Norris v. Norris, NO. 2014-CP-00939-COA, are relatively short:

 Dwayne and Jacqueline were married in October 2008. They separated in May 2012. On June 20, 2012, Jacqueline filed her complaint for divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Dwayne was served with the summons and complaint. Dwayne filed two pro se responses on July 17, 2012, and again on July 24, 2012, which the chancery clerk filed. On January 13, 2014, Jacqueline filed her notice of service of discovery to which Dwayne did not respond. Jacqueline filed her motion to set trial on March 11, 2014, and a notice of hearing set for April 9, 2014. On April 9, 2014, the chancellor entered an order that set the trial for June 5, 2014. The chancery clerk filed a certificate of mailing that indicated Dwayne was sent a copy of the order setting trial on April 9, 2014.  A trial was held on June 5, 2014. Dwayne did not appear. The trial was held in Dwayne’s absence. Jacqueline and Quinesha McCurdy, Jacqueline’s stepsister, both testified on Jacqueline’s behalf.. On June 12, 2014, the chancellor entered the final judgment that granted Jacqueline a divorce due to habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, changed her name, and allowed her to retain all property in her possession. The chancellor further awarded Jacqueline “$5,000 . . . as equitable distribution of the parties’ debt.”

Dewayne’s brief on appeal very colorfully challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the $5,000 award with a few zingers:

She got the goldmine, I got the shaft.

The trial transcript reflects the lack of specificity and completely unsubstantiated estimations.

There are no defaults in divorce cases, and the defendant’s failure to appear should note provide a plaintiff with a blank check and abrogate the necessity of having an evidentiary basis for the amount of the judgment.

Because the appellant was not present to give his perspective on the factual circumstances, the wife and her attorney had the courtroom all to themselves, free to make assertions with impunity, representations without fear of contradiction, and to paint the vilest portrait of your appellant uninterrupted by objections.

This is like buying a pig in a poke.  There are no defaults in divorce cases, and the defendant’s failure to appear should not be license for a plaintiff to ring up the cash register without showing some evidentiary basis for the amount of the judgment.

The Court of Appeals sided with Dewayne:

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….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 was manifestly wrong.

Norris, at paragraph 12-13.

So what do we learn here?  Even if the other side doesn’t show up, put your proof in the record.  Don’t rely on guestimates.  Prepare a proper 8.05 financial statement and introduce it to support your request for an equitable distribution.

If you need to polish up on how to prepare a proper 8.05, take a look at Chancellor Primeaux’s 10 Tips For More Effective Rule 8.05 Financial Statements and his subsequent Five More Tips for More Effective Rule 8.05 Financial Statements.

Will the AshleyMadison.com data dump lead to divorces in Mississippi?

AshleyMadison

AshleyMadison.com is a website designed for married people to find a person with which to have an affair. Their slogan is “Life is short.  Have an affair.”  The bottom of their site contains what appear to be little awards claiming “Trusted Security Award” and “100% Discrete Service.”  Not so.

By now you have probably heard about the AshleyMadison.com (AM) data dump.  This story began back on July 15 when online security expert Brian Krebs reported that a group of hackers named the Impact Team had compromised the databases and proprietary electronic information of AM, its parent company Avid Life media and related sites Cougar Life and Established Men.

A little over a month later on August 18 the data dump started showing up around the web.  Various sites have popped up where you can search the database by email address including this one.  According to Joseph Cox at Motherboard, the Impact Group as now dumped another set of data that is roughly twice the size of the first dump.

The two AM data dumps come on the heals of yet another data dump at adult hookup site AdultFriendFinder.com a few months back.  Cheaters beware.

So how long will it be before the first client walks into a lawyer’s office in Mississippi asking for a divorce based on the AshleyMadison or AdultFriendFinder data dumps?  If it hasn’t already happened, it won’t be long.

3 years to file for alienation of affection in MS, but when does the 3 years start?

As the above letter from a reditt user shows, there are a number of ways to seek revenge with a cheating spouse.  If you are in Mississippi, you can add the filing of an alienation of affection lawsuit against the paramour to the list.

Mississippi is one of only a handful of states that allows a legal claim for alienation of affection.To prevail, a plaintiff must show  the legal elements for the claim which are wrongful conduct of the defendant, loss of affection or consortium and a causal connection between the conduct and the loss.  Fitch v. Valentine, 959 So.2d 1012, 1015 (Miss. 2007).  In addition, the plaintiff must file the lawsuit within the statute of limitations.  “Thought alienation of affection is an intentional tort, it does not have a specifically prescribed statute of limitations.  Therefore, we apply the general three-year statute of limitation..” Fulkerson v. Odom, 53 So.3d 849, 851 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).

Under Mississippi law, a claim of alienation of affection accrues when the alienation of affection or loss of affection is finally accomplished.  The accrual of the claim, then, occurs when the affections of the spouse involved in the extramarital relationship are alienated.  The affections of the spouse wronged by the affair are irrelevant to a determination of when the cause of action accrued.

Carter v. Reddix, et al, 115 So.3d 851, 857 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)(internal citations omitted).  The discovery rule does not toll the three year statute of limitations. Fulkerson v. Odom, 53 So.3d 849 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).

With those general principles in mind, the Mississippi Court of Appeals is set to her oral argument in the case of Shane Anderson v. James B. Ladner in cause no. 2014-CA-00730 on Wednesday at 10:30 a.m.

Webcast link.

Brief of Shane Anderson

Response of James B. Ladner

Reply of Shane Anderson

Anderson brought claims against Ladner for alienation of affection (AA), reckless infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages.  The statute of limitations for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is one year and a claim for punitive damages is not a stand alone claim, so lets focus on the AA claim.

At the trial court level, Ladner argued that the filing of the joint filed divorce triggered the running of the statute of limitations on the AA claim.  The trial court agreed and dismissed the case.

On appeal, Anderson primarily argues for a bright line rule that accrual of an alienation of affection case begins at the finalization of the divorce and that such a rule “would be more consistent with the irreconcilable differences divorce statute because the statute itself provides for an opportunity for reconciliation.”  Anderson’s Brief at p. 10.

Ladner counters that Anderson didn’t request a bright line rule before the trial court and that Anderson’s claim accrued at the time the complaint for divorce was filed.  Ladner also argues that Anderson is prohibited from arguing a different accrual date due to res judicata and collateral estoppel.

So when exactly does the three years start?  The positions advocated by both parties have positives and negative attributes.  A bright line rule provides clarity.  However, consider the situation where a married couple files for divorce, but subsequently reconcile in spite of an earlier alienation of affection by a third party.  Anderson’s position would be that an AA claim never accrued because there was no divorce.  Ladner’s position is in and of itself a form of bright line rule.  Any time a divorce was filed (regardless of whether the parties completed the divorce), the statute of limitations would begin to run on an AA claim.

Tune in tomorrow at 10:30 for the argument.

Making a federal case out of it?

Very few cases make it to the United States Supreme Court.  According to stats from the Court, they receive “approximately 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year.  The Court grants and hears oral argument in about 75-80 cases.”  Your ordinary car wreck case where both parties are residents of the same state generally doesn’t have any federal questions.  Appeals end at the highest appeals court for the state where the case was tried.

The alienation of affection case involving pro golfer John Daly that I previously discussed here is making a stop by the US Supreme Court due to the defendant filing a petition for writ of certiorari.  The basis of the petition boils down to claiming the Mississippi courts have no jurisdiction over the defendant where:

  • The plaintiff and defendant are non-residents of Mississippi
  • The defendants contacts with Mississippi are insufficient to confer jurisdiction
  • Mississippi has “virtually no interest in entertaining this dispute between the Plaintiff and another nonresident to which no Mississippi substantive law is likely to apply”
  • The states of residency for the parties have abolished the tort of alienation of affection therefor allowing Mississippi courts to exercise jurisdiction here would corrupt the doctrine of state sovereignty.

Interesting arguments that raise federal issues.

The original opinion from the Mississippi Court of Appeals states:

While the state’s interest is not as strong in this case as it was in Knight since the marriage at issue is not a Mississippi marriage, we still conclude that Mississippi has “an especial interest” in this case. The Legislature, in modifying our state’s long-arm statute in 1980, expressed the public policy of the state to provide a forum for nonresidents to pursue compensation for torts committed in whole or in part in this state. See Camp, 462 So. 2d at 727; 1980 Miss. Law, Ch. 437. ¶33. The trial court recognized Miller’s strong interest in obtaining effective relief for the alienation-of-affection tort she alleges occurred within our borders. Miller lacks a viable alternative forum to adjudicate that claim, since both Tennessee and Florida have abolished alienation-of-affection as a cause of action. This fact increases Mississippi’s interest in adjudicating this claim.

While I support Mississippi’s reluctance to abolish alienation of affection cases for the benefit of Mississippi residents, I fail to see what business Mississippi has in providing a forum for out of state litigants in these matters or why Mississippi’s interests are increased in the matter due to the litigants being residents of states that have abolished alienation of affection.

My take – the Court of Appeals got it wrong, but statistically I do not expect the US Supreme Court to fix it.  Petition for writ of certiorari will be denied.  The case will head toward trial in Mississippi and may very well end up before the Mississippi appellate courts once again.  For now, alienation of affection cases are viable in Mississippi where:

  • the defendant is a Mississippi resident,
  • a non-resident defendant engages in acts (romantic rendezvous) in furtherance of the alienation of affection while physically present in Mississippi, or
  • a non-resident defendant directs contact (phone calls, gifts, emails, text messages, etc.) to a married person in Mississippi in furtherance of the alienation of affection.

Return to sender, reverse and render

Arguably the most famous person ever born in Tupelo, Mississippi had a little hit back in 1962 titled “Return to Sender”

I gave a letter to the postman,
He put it his sack.
Bright in early next morning,
He brought my letter back.

She wrote upon it:
Return to sender, address unknown.
No such number, no such zone.

Hopefully, Elvis wasn’t singing about sending love letters to a married person as was central to Nordness v. Faucheaux case handed down today by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Phillip and Paige Faucheux were a military couple who moved frequently, but lived in Mississippi during the time relevant to the case.  While Phillip was a resident of Mississippi he began a relationship with Francesca Nordness, a resident of Louisiana.  According to the opinion:

Phillip and Francesca continued the affair while Phillip trained in south Louisiana. Phillip often would drive Francesca around in his Mazda pick-up truck with Louisiana license plates. Francesca never visited Phillip in Mississippi, and Phillip never told Francesca that he lived in Mississippi. Instead, he misled her into believing he actually lived in Memphis. His cell phone had a “901” area code—the area code for the Memphis area—and he sent her packages with a Memphis return address.

and

Francesca and Phillip continued to rendezvous at locations across the country, including Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, and Colorado—but never Mississippi. And although the two exchanged e-mails, phone calls, and text messages, Francesca never knowingly communicated with Phillip while he was in Mississippi. Phillip also sent Francesca several FedEx packages during this time, but according to Phillip’s uncontroverted testimony, he always used a Memphis return address.

Paige finally decided enough was enough and divorced Phillip.  Shortly thereafter, Paige brought suit in Mississippi against Francesca for alienation of affection and a number of related torts.  Francesca filed a motion to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction claiming in essence “I wasn’t in Mississippi and didn’t do anything in Mississippi.”  The trial court denied the motion and the parties ended up before the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Several recent alienation of affection cases before the Court have centered on claims by defendants of insufficient contact with Mississippi to support personal jurisdiction.  To the best of my recollection, all of those challenges have failed until today.

In Miller v. Provident Adver. & Mktg., 2014 Miss. App. LEXIS 339, 24-25 (Miss. Ct. App. June 17, 2014) involving pro golfer John Daly, the Court of Appeals found:

[T]he alleged sexual activity between Cladakis and Daly within the state of Mississippi, which contributed to the breakup of Daly’s marriage with Miller, constituted a tort committed, at least in part, within this state. For whatever reason Cladakis and Daly chose Mississippi for the site of their liaisons, this Court finds that decision constituted a purposeful availment to activities within the state for purposes of personal jurisdiction.

In Knight v. Woodfield, 50 So. 3d 995 (Miss. 2011) the court found sufficient contacts where “Knight admitted he was aware that Dakka and Woodfield were married and that Dakka lived with Woodfield in Mississippi.”

In contrast to Miller and Knight, the Court in this case could find no purposeful contact by Francesca with the State of Mississippi.

The record includes no evidence that Francesca created sufficient purposeful minimum contacts with Mississippi by having an affair with a man she did not know lived in Mississippi. Her calls and text messages to Phillip’s Memphis telephone number do not establish minimum contacts in Mississippi. A nonresident defendant must knowingly and purposefully establish minimum contacts with the forum state—in this case, Mississippi—such that the nonresident reasonably can expect to be haled into court in that state.

Nordess, at paragraph 45.  The end result from the Court was to reverse and render.

*Short practice tip – If you plan on filing an alienation of affection case in Mississippi against a non-resident of Mississippi, find some knowing contact by the paramour with the State of Mississippi.  That contact could be:

  • directing emails, letters, texts messages or gifts to the married person in the State of Mississippi
  • knowledge by the paramour that the married person is a Mississippi resident
  • presence of the non-resident paramour in the State of Mississippi to engage in a sexual act with the married person or further the illicit affair

If you can’t prove these minimum contacts your lawsuit, like the King’s letter, will be returned to sender.

The worst pro se filing ever?

Last week on tax day made 15 years for me in the practice of law.  In that period of time I have crossed paths with some really good people and a considerably smaller group that were anything but.  Just when I thought I had viewed most every absurd thing that could be filed in a court, I saw this jewel that was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by an irate pro se plaintiff.  I did not bother to count the number of F-bombs in her “Notice to F*ck this Court and Everything It Stands For” but the number is substantial.

http://www.docdroid.net/y8kx/41-main.pdf.html

This woman will likely end up in jail or a mental institution in the very near future.

Here is a small piece of advice I give every client before deposition and that applies equally to anyone filing a document in Court…..Do not use profanity for any reason unless you are directly quoting to the Court what someone else said that is important to your case.

Unfortunately, something will likely top this pro se pleading before I make my next 15 years.

Search terms……….Ask Randy v2

Version 2 of my previous blog post Ask Randy.   As stated in the previous post, it is a combination of Dear Abby, ask a friend and general Mississippi legal advice.  If you have a specific legal issue contact an attorney licensed in your state for your specific issue.  Keep this legal notice in mind.

if a divorce goes to trial does the man always end up worse

Worse than what?  Worse than if he settled on equitable terms? Maybe.  Worse than if he never had a go through a divorce?  Probably so.  Worse than taking a horrible settlement offered by his future ex?  Doubtful.  Every case and potential settlement must be evaluated on its own terms.

what happens if you pick up your husband’s last name and u get divorce

You keep it unless you request that your maiden name be restored in the divorce.

what recourse is available to me if my husband did not tell me he murdered someone prior to us getting married.

That is a freaky situation, but not grounds for divorce in Mississippi.

wife cheats on husband and wins in court

A basis or ground for divorce may entitle you to divorce, but it is not outcome determinative.  While the court may consider marital fault, cheaters receive an equitable distribution of marital assets and debt.

since i married ten years ago my wife and her exbf want kill me

Strongly consider getting a divorce and moving on with your life.  No reason to stay around anyone that wants to kill you!

bringing mistress home to live before divorce is final does that hurt custody changes

It certainly doesn’t help your chances.  Just don’t do it.

how to divorce your crazy boyfriend

Leave.  No legal process is required to separate yourself from a boyfriend.

are muzzle loaders legal for felons

Not in Mississippi.

what is it call if you lie in a divorce court

It is called many things…..perjury, stupid, a bad idea, a good way to go to jail, how to piss of the judge, etc.  Just don’t do it.

how to make sure my wife gets nothing in divorce

That probably isn’t going to happen.  Get over it.

if a man leaves you 5 times and keeps coming back what are the odds of divorce

I am not sure Vegas would put odds on it, but at least 50/50 (meaning I don’t have a clue).

what can one due to stop grandparents from meddling in divorce proceding by funding adulterous son

Nothing.  His parents can pay whatever they want on his behalf.  Only worry about what is in your control.

i am with a man thats married thst says his attorney said to wait to grt divorced until the house sells

There is a decent chance that you will be waiting a LOOOOOOOONG time.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: