Category Archives: Uncategorized

Posted on by

Core proceedings are proceedings or issues that are entirely related to the bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy judge presides over these issues. Core proceedings in a bankruptcy case include:

  • Matters concerning estate administration. For example, the court has jurisdiction over the bankruptcy trustee’s duties in administering the estate.
  • Matters concerning creditors’ claims. For example, if the trustee objects to a creditor’s claim, the court has jurisdiction over the objection.
  • Matters concerning the debtor’s exemptions. For example, if the trustee objects to the debtor’s exemptions, the court has jurisdiction over the objection.
  • Matters concerning the debtor or the trustee obtaining credit. For example, in a Chapter 13 case, the debtor must seek court permission before incurring debt.
  • Matters concerning the debtor or other parties turning over property to the estate. For example, if another person is holding property of the debtor, the court can order that person to turn that property over to the trustee.
  • Proceedings to determine, avoid or recover preferences. The trustee can seek to recover money the debtor paid to creditors during the preference period, and the court will have jurisdiction over the matter.
  • Proceedings to determine, avoid or recover fraudulent transfers. The trustee can seek to recover money the debtor fraudulently transferred, and the court will have jurisdiction over the matter.
  • Motions to terminate, modify, or annul the automatic stay. For example, if a creditor files a motion to lift the automatic stay so the creditor can foreclose or repossess, the court will hear the motion.
  • Proceedings to determine dischargeability or to object to dischargeability of certain debts. For example, if a creditor objects to the debtor’s discharging its particular debt, the bankruptcy court would hear the objection.
  • Proceedings to determine the validity, extent or priority of liens.
  • Confirmation of bankruptcy plans, such as the plan you file in a Chapter 13 case.
  • Matters concerning the use or lease of bankruptcy estate property.
  • Matters concerning the sale of bankruptcy estate property.

This list is non-exhaustive; core proceedings also include any other proceedings that involve the administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Non-Core Proceedings

Non-core proceedings are proceedings that do not arise under bankruptcy law, even if some of the issues in the case relate to the bankruptcy. For example, if the bankruptcy debtor is in the middle of a divorce, the divorce is a non-core proceeding. Although the debtor’s property affects the bankruptcy estate, the bankruptcy judge cannot determine the outcome of a divorce case. Similarly, if a bankruptcy debtor is involved in a personal injury lawsuit, the bankruptcy court has no control over the personal injury case, even though the proceeds may be bankruptcy estate property.

When a bankruptcy case involves a number of core and non-core issues combined, the bankruptcy judge must determine issue by issue whether he or she has jurisdiction over each one.

Posted on by

MRCP 59(a) provides that the trial court may grant a new trial ” … in an action tried without a jury, for any of the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the courts of Mississippi.” In non-jury cases ” … the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new findings of fact and conclusions, and direct entry of a new judgment.”

Posted on by

Statutory order of preference for appointment of Administrator.  § 91-7-63, MCA.

  • Surviving spouse.
  • Next of kin, if not otherwise disqualified.
  • Other third party, bank or trust company.
  • If no application is made within 30 days of the decedent’s death, administration may be granted to a creditor or other suitable person.
  • If no application is made and the decedent left property in Mississippi, county administrator or sheriff may be appointed.  § 91-7-79 and -83, MCA.
Posted on by

In order to initiate an administration for a decedent who died without a will, a petition must be filed in the county in which the decedent resided.

The decedent’s heirs are given priority to serve as administrators or administratrix of the estate for thirty days.  After 30 days, the appointment of an administrator or administratrix is within the discretion of the court.  In order for letters of administration to be granted, the individual who petitions to be appointed as the administrator or administratrix must meet three requirements.  First, the prospective administrator or  administratrix must be at least eighteen years of age.  Second, the prospective administrator or administratrix must not have been convicted of a felony.  Third, the prospective administrator or administratrix must be of sound mind.  Prior to letters of administration being granted, the petitioner must take an oath that is required by statute.  In addition, unless waived or reduced by the court, the petitioner must give bond in an amount equal to the value of the decedent’s personal estate.

 Three disinterested persons are appointed to compile an inventory and appraise the decedent’s chattels, goods, and personal estate; this requirement excludes money and choses in action.  The inventory and appraisement must be completed thirty days after letters of administration are granted.  In addition, the administrator or administratrix must make an inventory of the decedent’s money that comes into the administrator’s possession and debts owed to the decedent.  In the event that the court waives the appraisal and inventory requirement, the inventory that is prepared by the administrator or administratrix must also list and value any of the decedent’s property that is in his or her possession.

 The administrator or administratrix of an estate must make a diligent effort to identify and notify the decedent’s creditors.   After completing these tasks, the administrator or administratrix must file an affidavit indicating compliance with these mandates.  Subsequently, a notice to creditors must be published once a week for three consecutive weeks.  The preferred means of notification is publication in a newspaper that is circulated in the county of the decedent’s residence.  If the claim of a creditor is not probated and registered with the clerk of the court within ninety days of the first publication, the claim is forever barred.

Mississippi Code Ann §91-7-83 provides that if there are no individuals who qualify to act as administrators, the chancery clerk or court may appoint the sheriff who shall administer the estate.

Posted on by

It has long been established that an individual who rents from another is an “invitee” and is owed a duty of ordinary care by the landlord to keep the premises reasonably safe.  Mississippi courts have held that a person who is on the rental property at the invitation of the tenant is owed the same duty.  In Joiner v. Haley, 777 So.2d 50, 52 (Miss. App.2000), the Court stated that “it would appear that an invited guest on the premises of rental property would be afforded the same protections extended to the tenant.” The Court also noted that in multi-unit apartment buildings, where the owner expressly or impliedly reserves parts for common use, “[i]t is the landlord’s duty to keep safe such parts over which he reserves control, and, if he is negligent in this respect, and personal injury results to a tenant or to a person there in the right of the tenant, he is liable in tort.” Lucas v. Miss. Hous. Auth. No. 8, 441 So.2d 101, 103 (Miss. 1983) (quoting Turnipseed v. McGee, 236 Miss. 159, 109 So.2d 551 (1959)).

Posted on by

To challenge a wire tap, the movant must be a party with standing.  The “aggieved person” is the person against whom the wiretap was directed or someone who was a party to those communications.  The movant may file a motion to suppress evidence on the following grounds:

  1. the communication was unlawfully intercepted
  2. the order authorizing or approving the interception was insufficient on its face or
  3. the interception was not made in conformity with the order authorizing or approving it.

Wire taps are designed to intercept relevant subject matter only and are to be suspended during the discussion of non criminal activities.  The agency is required to “minimize” the scope of the wiretap to include discourse related to the subject matter contained in the authorization.  When reviewing a minimization challenge the court looks at the reasonablness of the agents efforts to minimize the wiretaps.  Challenges to wiretaps through “minimization” motions are rarely granted

More commonly used challenges to wiretaps involve whether the government could have used other investigative techniques to obtain the information.  If the Court determines that other, less intrusive techniques could have been used or were not used, the wiretap evidence may be suppressed.

Defendants may bring what is known as a “Franks” challenge alleging that the authorization was granted based on a “false statement knowingly and intentionally with reckless disregard for the truth” made in the government’s affidavit. Franks v. Delaware.  Upon a showing that the statement was necessary to establish the required probable cause element.  The defendant must show that the statement made was made knowingly and intentionally and with reckless disregard for the truth. 

All challenges to wiretaps are difficult to win.  Motions must be pled with specificity and may require discovery request directed to the prosecutors.

Posted on by

“The ownership, control, or occupancy of a thing”, most frequently land or personal property, by a person.The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “there is no word more ambiguous in its meaning than possession” (National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead, 232 U.S. 58, 34 S. Ct. 209, 58L. Ed. 504 [1914]). The term “possession” has a variety of possible meanings. As a result, possession,or lack of possession, is often the subject of controversy in civil cases involving real and personal property and criminal cases involving drugs and weapon

Posted on by

Wiretaps require a court order based on a showing of probable cause.  A three-step process must be followed to obtain a court order:

1. The law enforcement officer conducting the investigation must prepare a detailed affidavit demonstrating that there is probable cause that the target telephone is being utilized to facilitate a “specific, serious, indictable crime”.

2. The prosecuting attorney for the federal, state, or local government must
work with the law enforcement officer to prepare an “application” for a
court order, based upon the officer’s affidavit.  If the investigation federal,
the application must be approved by the Attorney General, Deputy
Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, any Assistant Attorney
General, any acting Assistant Attorney General, or any Deputy Assistant
Attorney General in the Criminal Division designated by the Attorney
General.  If the investigation is being conducted on the state level, the application must be prepared and approved by the State Attorney General, district attorney or county prosecutor).

3.   The attorney must present the approved application to a federal or state judge who is authorized to issue a court order for electronic surveillance.

A court order is typically issued after a lengthy investigation and
the use of a Dialed Number Recorder or “DNR”.  The DNR is used to track
the outgoing calls from the suspect’s phone in order to demonstrate
that the targeted suspect is conducting criminal activity. .

Posted on by

In Mississippi, a defendant may not have his damages reduced because of amounts plaintiff receives from independent sources like insurance, workers’ compensation, or Medicaid. Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Frierson, 818 So. 2d 1135 (Miss. 2002); Brandon HMA, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 809 So. 2d 611 (Miss. 2001).  These decisions upheld verdicts in trials in which plaintiffs established medical damages by introducing the full face amount of the bills issued by health care providers in excess of the amounts Medicaid and Medicare actually paid, and plaintiffs were not responsible for the excess.

The Court has upheld this rule, known as the “collateral source rule” in multiple cases.  In the case of Burr v. Mississippi Baptist Med. Ctr, the court held that “compensation 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.”  Mississippi Baptist Med. Ctr. 909 So.2d 721, 728 (Miss. 2005).  Also see Geske v. Williamson, “The rule applies only when the compensation is for the same injury for which damages are sought”.  Williamson945 So.2d 429, 433 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)  In that case, the trial court had admitted evidence of health insurance and workers’ compensation benefits for a separate and distinct injury than the injuries at issue. The “collateral source rule” also applies to private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid and has also been applied to a victim’s rights fund which paid a portion of the decedent’s funeral expenses. Gatlin v. Methodist Medical Ctr., 772 So.2d 1023, 1031 (Miss. 2000).

The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that there is no reason to treat Medicaid or Medicare benefits any differently than private insurance payments which are subject to the collateral source rule. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Frierson, 818 So.2d 1135, 1140 (Miss. 2002); Brandon HMA, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 809 So.2d 611, 618-20 (Miss. 2001). The collateral source rule applies to both gratuitous medical care and gifts received by the plaintiff. Brandon HMA, 809 So.2d at 618. see Collateral Source Rule and Exceptions, American Bar Association, Litigation Section.

Posted on by

In Mississippi, specific performance is an equitable remedy available in breach of contract actions.  The remedy is one of equity and is awarded in Chancery Court.  In the Mississippi Supreme Court case of Lee v. Coahoma Opportunities, Inc., the Supreme Court held that  “A claim for specific performance as a remedy for breach of contract is within the equity jurisdiction of the chancery court.  485 So.2d 293, 294-95 (Miss.1986).  Specific performance is commonly awarded in controversies involving real estate sales.  For instance, if the seller in a sales contract fails to do or not to do something, and refuses to sell the property, the court could order the seller to sell the property as agreed to in the contract.  Conversely, if the buyer is in breach, he or she could be ordered to purchase the property in accordance with the terms of the contract.

Specific performance as remedy may not be available in other breach of contract actions.  If a party to a contract feels they have been wronged by the other party, they should contact an attorney to for a full understanding of the remedies available.