Court Opinion

ID: 9782915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:30:00.241277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:16.574225
License: Public Domain

GRIFFIS, J., Specially
Concurring.
¶ 33. I concur with the majority. A summons under Rule 81 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure may not be substituted for a Rule 4 summons under Rule 4 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.
¶ 34. I write separately because I believe Rule 81 is a treacherous and often misunderstood rule. It was included in the rules at the behest of several well-respected chancellors. They were concerned with how practice under the then “new” rules of civil procedure would affect domestic relations law and other statutory claims.
¶ 35. After almost thirty years now that the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure have governed procedure in our chancery courts, more than one party and practitioner have fallen prey to the hidden tentacles of Rule 81. The results of the trap laid by Rule 81 can be devastating, such as in this case.
¶ 36. Rule 81(d) should be transferred to Rule 4 or some other appropriate rule. All notice provisions should be in or near Rule 4. Rule 81 should remain, but without paragraph (d). I urge the Mississippi Supreme Court to revise the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure to make the notice requirements of Rule 81 easier to understand and to comply with in actual practice.
LEE, P.J., AND MAXWELL, J., JOIN THIS OPINION.