Opinion ID: 1139006
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Prong: Is the basis for requesting relief legitimate?

Text: In their attempt to satisfy the first prong, the conservators (movants) contend that the justifiable reason for setting aside the default judgment is Rich's incompetence. See M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6). Specifically, they cite Rich's age, lack of memory, and poor health (she supposedly has or had melanoma). In short, they suggest that her condition is reflective of classic senile dementia. To support their contention, the conservators presented the testimony of various family members: (1) Betty Brown, who is Rich's daughter and one of Rich's two conservators; (2) Jean Jennings, Rich's granddaughter and the other conservator; (3) Rich, the defendant; and (4) Debbie McAdory, Rich's granddaughter. [3] The family members simply agreed that Rich was old, lacked a good memory, and was in poor health. Surprisingly, no expert testimony was presented to show that Rich was incompetent. Nevels counters by first noting that, although Rich's relatives claim that Rich was too incompetent to receive a summons, they curiously did not seek a conservatorship until after they learned of the default judgment. Nevels contends that the evidence simply does not demonstrate ... a condition of incompetence and affords no legitimacy to Rich's utter failure to respond to the summons. Moreover, [i]n Mississippi, as elsewhere, the law presumes sanity until the contrary is shown ... [o]ld age, weakening of the memory and understanding, and occasional eccentric acts are not of themselves sufficient evidence of incapacity. Appellee's Brief at 7-8 (quoting Scott v. United States, 190 F.2d 134, 136 (5th Cir.1951)).