Opinion ID: 1614077
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the chancellor erred in refusing to deem requests for admission admitted despite an untimely response.

Text: ¶ 26. Matters of discovery are left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and discovery orders will not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion. Scoggins v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp.-Desoto, 967 So.2d 646, 648 (Miss. 2007) (quoting Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 516 (Miss.2001)). ¶ 27. The Pendletons argue that the chancery court erred by denying their motion to deem their requests for admission admitted by Tony, as he was more than sixty-four days late in responding. The Pendletons propounded requests for admission on August 8, 2006. Notice of service was filed on September 25, 2006. The requests for admission were finally answered on November 10, 2006. The Pendletons requested at the start of trial that the chancellor deem various requests for admission admitted by Tony, due to his untimely response. Tony's counsel admitted at trial that no extension was requested nor did he offer any explanation for the delay. Tony counter-argued that he received notice of the motion to deem those answers admitted only on the eve of trial, and, more importantly, that deeming the answers admitted would take away some of the chancellor's discretion. The chancellor determined that the Pendletons' motion was not timely filed. ¶ 28. We find that it was unnecessary for the Pendletons to petition the chancellor to deem the requests for admission admitted. Consequently, the chancellor was in error for denying the request as being untimely filed. According to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a), a matter is admitted unless, within thirty days after service of the request ... the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by his attorney. Thus, a judge does not have the discretion to deem the matter admitted, because a request is conclusively established upon a party's failure to answer within thirty days, or such time as the judge has determined appropriate. Miss. R. Civ. P. 36(b). The trial court, may, however, permit withdrawal or amendment of the admission. Id. Rule 36 is to be applied as written, but it is not intended to be applied in Draconian fashion. If the Rule may sometimes seem harsh in its application, the harshness may be ameliorated by the trial court's power to grant amendments or withdrawals of admissions in proper circumstances. DeBlanc v. Stancil, 814 So.2d 796, 801-02 (Miss.2002). The rule was intended to be used as a means to determine which facts are not in dispute, not as a way to avoid adjudication of contested issues. Id. ¶ 29. In Scoggins, the plaintiff failed to answer requests for admissions until 148 days after they were propounded by the defendants. Scoggins, 967 So.2d at 648. This Court upheld the circuit court's finding that requests for admission were admitted. Id. at 649. In doing so, the Court also stated that the trial court's determination that the requests for admission were admitted by operation of law was not an abuse of discretion. Id. at 649. The Court stated that [w]e are compelled to acknowledge that adage that rules are promulgated for a purpose, this being precisely an instance in which the principle applies. Id. (quoting Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 516 (Miss.2001)). Further, in Scoggins, this Court noted that any difficulty with the case could easily have been eliminated if a motion to withdraw or amend the answers had been filed pursuant to Rule 36(b) and if there were justifiable excuse. Id. (quoting Martin v. Simmons, 571 So.2d 254, 257 (Miss.1990)). ¶ 30. Notwithstanding this Court's decision in Scoggins, the Mississippi Court of Appeals has addressed this issue in a child custody matter. In Gilcrease v. Gilcrease, 918 So.2d 854, 856 (Miss.Ct.App.2005), the Court of Appeals reviewed a chancellor's finding that requests for admissions propounded to the mother were deemed admitted for failure to respond. Gilcrease, 918 So.2d at 856. When the chancellor determined the best interests of the child, however, she ignored one of the admissions that directly dealt with that issue. Id. at 857-58. The admission was that the best interest of the child would be placing the child in the custody of the father. Id. at 858. Aggrieved, the father appealed the chancellor's decision which awarded custody to the mother. Id. at 856. ¶ 31. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision and found that the chancellor acted appropriately in the custody case as custody is a judicial, not an evidentiary, determination. Gilcrease, 918 So.2d at 858-59. The court found that the chancellor's actions were manifestly appropriate, as the folly of allowing child custody cases to be determined by admission is self-evident. Id. at 859. Further, the court stated [n]o right-minded chancellor should ever allow the custody of a child to be determined, in light of the possible dire consequences to the child, based upon a Rule 36 admission. Id. ¶ 32. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals also found that the chancellor made a procedural error by ignoring the admission sua sponte. Gilcrease, 918 So.2d at 859. The better course, according to the court, would have been for the chancellor to follow proper procedure to grant amendment or withdrawal as set forth in Rule 36. Id. However, the mother never filed a motion to withdraw, therefore, the court found that the chancellor erred by ignoring the admission. Id. The error, however, was committed with a proper result in mind, the polestar consideration of the best interests of the child. Id. In this context, the Court of Appeals found no substantive error and affirmed the chancellor's award of custody to the mother. Id. ¶ 33. It was error for the chancellor to refuse to deem the Pendletons' requests for admission admitted at trial. The requests were admitted upon the thirty-first day after the Pendletons served the request. In light of the fact that this Court is reversing and remanding on the custody issue for an Albright analysis, Tony has the opportunity to file a motion for amendment or withdrawal as set forth in Rule 36, and the Pendletons have an opportunity to respond to any such motion.