Opinion ID: 1837616
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Trial Court abused its discretion in appointing an expert to bolster the Plaintiff's case.

Text: During the testimony of Holzer, the plaintiff/appellant's case-in-chief, the court on its own: THE COURT: stop[ped] the proceedings at this point and direct[ed] that that audit be conducted because it's obvious to me that we have inadequate data with which to proceed. You're [Mr. Nicholson, attorney for the Bryans] making that point and I concur with it. To be fair to both parties I think that's what we have to have. ... . And that's what I'm going to do, require an accounting. ... . I'm not halting [the proceedings]. I am extending it because I am going to get  I have that right and obligation. If you will read Griffith on Chancery Practice, it says that a chancellor has the right to require additional evidence at any state. And that's what I'm going to do right now. I find that Mr. Holzer is a very honorable reliable witness; he is not biased or interested in any way; and he has done the best that he can. Up to this point I'm totally satisfied with the report that he's made. ... . But it is short of supporting data. That data is within the hands of your [Mr. Nicholson's] clients and it should have been presented to him prior to now. But I can see reasons why it might not have been presented. And I'm not making any judgment or any conclusions, but I want to put someone on the case who will have the capacity to go and find where expenditures went and what, if anything is in the assets of the conservatorship and what, if anything, has been improperly handled... . I'm going to recess the hearing at this time... . ... . (THE TRIAL WAS IN RECESS UNTIL A LATER DATE.) No formal order of continuance, or order to retain jurisdiction until another court term, was ever filed. After the court-appointed accountant completed his report, the court held a hearing in vacation. The Bryans claim that because the court entered no order of continuance or order to retain jurisdiction, the court lost jurisdiction and had no authority to hear the matter. Miss. Code Ann. § 9-5-91 (Supp. 1990) provides authority for a chancellor to, in his discretion, in vacation, set causes for hearing, ... try cases, deliver opinions, make and sign decrees, and exercise the same jurisdiction and perform the same duties in vacation as are exercised and performed in term time, except as otherwise provided or precluded by law. He may also deliver opinions and make and sign decrees in vacation in causes taken under advisement by him at term time... . It has long been settled that Chancery Courts in Mississippi which exercise jurisdiction over guardianships of minors and incompetents and their business have general and constitutional jurisdiction, and all facts necessary to sustain the jurisdiction or decrees of such courts are presumed to exist until the contrary appears in the record. Majors v. Purnell's Pride, Inc., 360 F. Supp. 328, 329 (N.D.Miss. 1973) (citing Miss. Const. art. VI, § 159 (1890); Coglan v. Coglan, 196 Miss. 492, 18 So.2d 149 (1944)). Under the facts of this case, the Chancery Court entered a bench order recessing the hearing until the independent, court appointed audit could be performed. Under these circumstances, the ruling from the bench was sufficient for the court to retain jurisdiction. Additionally, section 9-5-91 provides authority for the hearing to be concluded in vacation time. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 614 allows the court to, on its own motion ... call witnesses, and all parties are entitled to cross-examine witnesses thus called. Rule 706 of the evidence rules provides for court appointed experts: (a) Appointment. The court may on its own motion or on the motion of any party enter an order to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed, and may request the parties to submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert witness agreed upon by the parties, and may appoint expert witnesses of its own selection. (Emphasis added). The comment to the rule explains, [s]ubsection (a) provides specifically for the appointment of an expert either on the motion of a party or on the judge's own motion. [4] Furthermore, chancery courts are under a duty, [t]o see that the case was fairly tried, and that all proper testimony was introduced to enable him to render a decision giving exact justice between the contending parties. The very purpose of a court of equity is to extend fairness in determining conflicting claims, and to give full and complete relief in every case presented. The chancellor is in no manner going beyond the duties imposed on him when he so conducts a case that all testimony which will throw light upon the matters in controversy is introduced; and in his discretion he may continue the case or remand it for further proof... . He should control all the proceedings... . It is his highest duty to see that litigants have fair trials of their causes. To this end it is not improper for him to aid in bringing out competent and relevant testimony. In the case sub judice the court appointed an independent auditor/public accountant to examine the ledger and other sources of documentation to assist in determining the status of the conservatorship account. The court-appointed conservator, Holzer, had only had access to the ledger and checking account records. The Bryans had not turned over all the property or all of the records to him. In the aid of justice, the court sought additional information to assist it in understanding the actual status of the account, and of the transactions which had occurred while James Bryan was conservator and Elizabeth Bryan kept the books. The chancery court committed no error by this appointment.