Opinion ID: 1130504
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: is this a proper case for declaratory judgment?

Text: Jane Riley's argument is simply that a declaratory judgment could not possibly end all litigation related to the contract, and the amount of fees allowable thereunder. Mittie Moreland points out, on the other hand, that the declaratory judgment action finally settled the controversy and uncertainty which gave rise to the action; namely, whether or not the legal services' contract is valid. Without this declaration, it is argued, litigation of the wrongful death action, including attempts to settle or compromise the claim, would be hampered. The sole issue involved in the declaratory judgment action is the validity vel non of the contract. The chancery court found that a declaratory judgment action was proper under the circumstances, and that the best interest of the minor and his guardianship estate would be served. As a result, the chancellor declared the legal services contract valid and binding. Not until final settlement would the court determine the amount and proportion of fees to be paid thereunder. The language of Rule 57, Miss.R.Civ.P., and its Comment are instructive. The rule provides in relevant part: RULE 57. DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS (a) Procedure. Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions may declare rights, status, and other legal relations regardless of whether further relief is or could be claimed. The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment where such judgment, if entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.       The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief in actions where it is appropriate. The court may order a speedy hearing of an action for declaratory judgment and may advance it on the calendar. The judgment in a declaratory relief action may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect. (b) When Available.       (3) Any person interested as or through an executor, administrator, trustee guardian or other fiduciary, creditor, devisee, legatee, heir, next of kin, or cestui que trust in the administration of a trust, or of the estate of a decedent, an infant, insolvent, or person under a legal disability, may have a declaration of rights or legal relations in respect thereto: (C) to determine any question arising in the administration of the estate or trust, including questions of construction of wills and other writings. (4) The enumeration in subdivisions (1), (2) and (3) of this rule does not limit or restrict the exercise of the general powers stated in paragraph (a) in any proceeding where declaratory relief is sought in which a judgment will terminate the controversy or remove an uncertainty. The Comment then provides that declaratory judgment actions are particularly useful solutions to questions concerning the validity and enforceability of contracts. More importantly, [t]he granting of a declaratory judgment rests in the sound discretion of the trial court ... The guiding criteria are that the judgment serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue, and that the judgment terminate and afford relief from the uncertainty, insecurity, and controversy giving rise to the proceeding. Stated otherwise, if Mittie Moreland has standing as an interested party, and one or more of the vital issues giving rise to the proceeding is shown to be susceptible of authoritative resolution, then the trial court generally ought to grant the declaratory judgment. See Johnson v. Hinds County, 524 So.2d 947, 954 (Miss. 1988); In re Validation of $7,800,000 Comb. Util. Sys., 465 So.2d 1003, 1004 (Miss. 1985). In our opinion, Mittie Moreland clearly has standing as an interested party, and the singular issue giving rise to the proceeding (the validity and enforceability of the contract) has been adequately shown to be susceptible of authoritative resolution. While there may be companion issues which still await determination, the existence of those issues in no way renders the use of declaratory judgment improper. In re Validation, supra . Therefore, we hold that the chancellor acted well within his discretion by granting the declaratory judgment.