Opinion ID: 1711352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether the chancellor erred by denying Julie's motion to amend her complaint.

Text: ¶ 32. Julie next complains that the chancellor erred by denying her motion to amend the complaint to include joint legal custody. She alleges that this issue was tried by implied consent. Julie relies in part upon Setser v. Piazza, 644 So.2d 1211, 1217 (Miss.1994), for implied consent authority. Setser concerned a child's emancipation and held that issues can be tried by implied consent pursuant to M.R.C.P. 15(b) even if the issue is not raised in the pleadings. Setser, 644 So.2d at 1217. A finding that an issue was tried by implied consent depends upon whether the parties recognized that a new issue was being litigated at trial. Id. (citing Shipley v. Ferguson, 638 So.2d 1295 (Miss.1994)). However, implied consent will not be found where the questions asked or the evidence presented at trial are relevant to the issues actually raised in the pleadings. Id. (citing Shipley, 638 So.2d at 1301). ¶ 33. Miss.Code Ann. § 93-5-24(3) (1994 & Supp.2002) provides that in cases which do not involve irreconcilable differences, joint custody may be awarded, in the discretion of the court, upon application of one or both parents. The chancellor issued an Opinion and Order of the Court on July 6, 2000, and awarded legal custody of the children to Ray and alternate six-month periods of physical custody to both Ray and Julie. On August 8, 2000, the chancellor issued the Judgment which incorporated by reference the previous opinion and order. ¶ 34. Prior to the final judgment, on July 24, 2000, Julie filed a motion to amend the pleadings to conform with the evidence. Julie claims that she filed the motion prior to the judgment so that the court could consider joint legal custody. She asserts that the issue of joint custody was tried by implied consent. She claims that she never wanted anything but joint custody, which she stated on the first day of trial. Julie also argues that her expert, Dr. Guild, confirmed that desire at the conclusion of the trial. In addition, she claims that Ray never objected to this testimony and was not prejudiced by it. ¶ 35. M.R.C.P. 15(b) concerns amending the pleadings to conform with the evidence and states: (b) Amendment to Conform to the Evidence. When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by expressed or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure so to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so freely when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the admission of such evidence would prejudice him in the maintaining of his action or defense upon the merits. The court may grant a continuance to enable the objecting party to meet such evidence. The court is to be liberal in granting permission to amend when justice so requires. ¶ 36. Ray argues that two isolated statements, one during Julie's testimony and the other in the rebuttal testimony of her expert, do not amount to implied consent. Ray further argues that the two parties requested sole legal and physical custody in all pleadings and that no witness testimony addressed the possibility of joint custody. Further, Ray argues that he did object to the testimony of the witness. The record reveals that counsel for Ray objected to the testimony of Dr. Guild on rebuttal claiming that the testimony should have been presented in Julie's case-in-chief. Counsel also objected to Dr. Guild giving a recommendation. (Dr. Guild recommended that Julie have physical custody and that there be joint legal custody of the children with a guardian ad litem.). The chancellor allowed testimony on limited issues. ¶ 37. A hearing on the motion occurred on October 31, 2000. The chancellor listened to arguments from both parties and stated in part: All right. Mr. Ross, I'm in agreement with what Mr. Roberts said in this case. Both sides fought for six days, not including the motions that we tried, each one determined to get sole legal and sole physical custody. And even after the case was over, I remember getting with the lawyers in chambers and suggesting that they prepare some proposal in case I decide I wanted to award joint legal and/or physical custody. Now, Mr. Roberts at that point said he doubted that they were going to address the issue, that they were going to go all the way for sole legal and sole physical custody. I think Mrs. Thibodeaux and Mr. Crockett possibly said that they would make a proposal. I'm not even sure how that went. But anyway, what it boiled down to was we were still in the situation of both fighting for sole custody, legal and physical. And the case law I later found out  I didn't know  I thought I had the authority at that time to go ahead and award joint legal and/or physical custody if I felt that that was the proper thing to do. But I later found out that that was not what the case law said and it had to be one or the other. And that's the reason I did it the way I did. And based on that, I'm going to overrule your motion. The chancellor entered an order denying the motion on January 8, 2001. In his ruling dated January 8, 2001, the chancellor stated: Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Pleadings to Conform to the Evidence, the Court finds that both parties sought sole legal and physical custody at the trial of this cause. Even in Chambers, after the Court asked the attorneys for both parties to consider joint legal and/or physical custody, both parties rejected the opportunity. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Pleadings to Conform to the Evidence shall be and is hereby DENIED. Clearly, mentioning a variation in custody in no more than two instances does not rise to implied consent. Ray objected to and had a continuing objection to Dr. Guild's testimony. All the pleadings and testimony, apart from Julie's assertion given during cross-examination, did not address joint custody. In fact, both parties maintained that they wanted sole custody of the children. The intent of the parties was clear, and to allow an amendment at such late date and after the initial findings would be prejudicial. This issue is without merit.