As I mentioned here before, today’s is the final post on this blog, except as I mention below. All of the content posted up to now will remain at this address for your ready access unless WordPress changes the rules to something intolerable, in which case I will try to let you know before disappearance takes place. Please remember that the law changes all the time, so when you read that post from 2012 and think “Aha! Just the case I’ve been looking for!” it may be that it is no longer good law. This site has never been intended as a substitute for solid research. Several people have asked me t ..read more

“Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest.”  —  Mark Twain “Sometimes I worry about being a success in a mediocre world.”  —  Lily Tomlin “The best politics is right action.”  —  Mahatma Gandhi ..read more

It is black-letter law in Mississippi that a court called upon to interpret a will is bound by the intent of the testator, and the court is limited to the four corners of the will itself. But what is the court to do when the will contains a provision such as this: I have five adult children … to whom I leave in equal shares, property I possess, whether real, personal or mixed (less any debt owing to me by any heir at the time of my death, to come out of that child’s part). The will included no itemization of any debt, but there had been loans by the decedent to several of the children. How is ..read more

At Kinderdijk, Netherlands ..read more

In divorce litigation between Sylvia and Mark Barber, the chancellor appointed a GAL to investigate Sylvia’s allegations that Mark had abused their children. After the GAL found the claims to be unsubstantiated, the chancellor granted Mark’s motion to limit the testimony of the GAL and to exclude the report from evidence. After the case was concluded, Sylvia appealed on several grounds, among them that the chancellor erred in excluding the GAL report and limiting the GAL’s testimony. In Barber v. Barber, decided January 30, 2020, the MSSC reversed. Justice Kitchens wrote for the 6-3 majority ..read more

May a person being sued by a conservatorship challenge the legality of the conservatorship and have it set aside? That was an issue that arose in the course of litigation between the conservators of Mary Cook and John Ward, her erstwhile business partner. The conservators sued Ward to recover money he got from Cook, charging him with undue influence and claiming she was incompetent. During the trial, Ward moved the court to “set aside” the conservatorship because the record showed that Cook was not given 5-days’ notice of the conservatorship hearing as required by § 93-13-253 (now superseded b ..read more

State Holiday Courthouse closed ..read more

Half of a Yellow Sun by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. The title refers to the golden rising-sun emblem on the national flag of the short-lived (1967-1970) Republic of Biafra (Bee-afra) that seceded from Nigeria, prompting a bloody tribal civil war in which millions were slaughtered and starved to death, and this is a story of that era. We see the unfolding events through several characters, including a professor, twin sisters from a patrician family, a house servant, an Englishman, and their interactions with each other and various minor figures. Adichie is a skilled storyteller adept at deve ..read more

Melvin and Karen Krohn were divorced, and Karen had custody of their daughter. The post-divorce period was contentious and litigious, but the parties did agree during one relatively peaceful period that the child could live with Melvin for a time, during which he would be relieved of his $1,500 a month child support obligation,  but the informal arrangement was never reduced to a court order. When the parties went back on the warpath, one of Melvin’s several claims was that Karen should be ordered to pay him child support for the time when the child was with him, and Karen should be held ..read more

Only last week I had two PSA’s presented to me in which the parties agreed to waive child support for the non-custodial parent. I refused to sign the judgments. The reason is that the parties are not at liberty to enter into such an agreement. The law could not be clearer. This is from the case of Varner v. Varner, 588 So.2d 428, 432-33 (Miss. 1991): Courts award child support to the custodial parent for the benefit and protection of the child. Lawrence v. Lawrence, 574 So.2d 1376, 1381 (Miss.1991); Cumberland v. Cumberland, 564 So.2d 839, 847 (Miss.1990); Nichols v. Tedder, 547 So.2d 766, 781 ..read more