Tag Archives: law

Ferraez In CUSTODY!

Local Hattiesburg Attorney Corey Ferraez was taken into custody for civil contempt today after an on-the-record-hearing in Forrest County before Judge Sheila Smallwood.

Ferraez was held in Civil Contempt for being found to have knowingly and willfully violated a valid Chancery Court Order requiring that he tender settlement proceeds from a wrongful death/estate matter unto the registry of the Court.

The widow of the estate, Ms. Weatherford, was present and testified at the hearing as was Mr. Ferraez. Hat tip to the Hattiesburg Patriot which Facebook Live – streamed the entire hearing. Mr. Ferraez sought to exclude the media at the outset of the Hearing and the Court denied this ore tenus motion.

Mr. Ferraez argued before the Court that he had substantially complied with the Court’s Order when he recently tendered some $215,000.00 of $450,000.00 ordered. Ferraez argued that he was entitled to a recovery of attorney’s fees and there were liens and pre-settlement payments to Ms. Weatheford, that when totaled up justified his figures. He also alleged to be having personal issues related to depression and substance abuse.

The Court reminded Mr. Ferraez that the Court, and Weatherford, had been seeking to get this matter resolved since Fall of 2024, that Ferraez was non responsive to the Court, missed Court appearances and never tendered all of the sums ordered. The Court was not unsympathetic, however the Court expects and requires that it’s Orders be complied with and followed.

Mr. Ferraez was taken into custody by the Perry County Sheriff, as the case was originally filed in Perry County.

One of the most interesting issues in this case is that Mr. Ferraez has the keys to the jail cell he is in. All he has to do is comply with the Court’s Order to be released from civil contempt. The Court Ordered that he is to be incarcerated until he pays the outstanding $195,000.00 +/- unto the registry of the Court.

Matthew Thompson is a family law/civil law attorney in Mississippi and shines the light on unethical and illegal conduct when it needs to be; whether it’s a Judge, a party or a lawyer.

Hattiesburg’s Most Wanted

Attorney, Corey Ferraez is being pursued by law enforcement and has a warrant for his arrest for Civil Contempt. This is circulating the blogosphere in Hattiesburg and the Jackson area.

This all stemmed from a wrongful death matter and the corresponding estate matter. See Weatherford, Stephen Ray “Fuzzy” 56CH1:22-pr-00021-SM

Ferraez was the attorney for the estate and settled the wrongful death claim for $450,000.00. These sums were to be held in trust until the Court approved the settlement, attorney fees, disbursement and liens were handled.

Delays for various reasons caused the matter to drag on. Eventually the Court set a hearing and required Ferraez to attend. He did not.

Thereafter, the Court entered a Show Cause Order requiring Ferraez to attend, explain why he should not be held in contempt and to tender all of the $450,000.00 into the registry of the Court.

Ferraez did not attend this hearing and did not pay any sums by the date of the hearing.

In a surprising turn of events however, he did file a response with the Court, indicated he had been ill, and eventually tendered about $215,000.00 of the $450,000.00, claiming the difference in the value was due to attorneys fees and liens (or loans) that the client took out against the settlement. This was surprising because the attorney filed a response with the Court despite not appearing.

It also came to light that he had previously written a $25,000.00 check to the client that bounced for insufficient funds.

Regardless of anything else, this does not end well for Mr. Ferraez.

He will have to answer to the Court for the handling of the proceeds, the Mississippi Bar about concerns of unethical conduct and very likely criminal ramifications…Mr. Ferraez should turn himself in as time is not on his side.

*In criminal courts a defendant enjoys a presumption of innocence. Civil Courts have a differing standard. Refusal to appear, answer, cooperate can and will be used against you.

All lawyers that handle “unearned fees” are required to have Trust accounts with banks. These Trust account records are relatively easy to obtain and determine when monies came in, when they went out, where they went and what is left, if anything…

Matthew Thompson is a family law/civil law attorney in Mississippi and acknowledges unethical and illegal conduct when it needs to be; whether it’s a Judge, a party or a lawyer.

True Joint Custody Bill Proposed…UPDATE, it’s DEAD

Mississippi Courts have not historically favored Joint Custody. A new Bill would require a presumption of Joint Custody is best for a child, that would have to be overcome if a parent doesn’t agree…

Senate Bill 2484 seeks to amend the current custody statute 93-5-24, as follows: “

(2) * * * (a) (i) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that joint custody and equally shared parenting time is in the best interest of the child. If the court does not grant joint custody and/or equally shared parenting time, the court shall construct a parenting time schedule which maximizes the time each parent has with the child and ensures the best interest of the child is met.
(ii) The presumption created in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. A court that does not award joint custody with equally shared parenting time shall document the reasons for deviating from the presumption.
(b) Upon petition of both parents, the court may grant
legal and/or physical custody to one (1) parent.”

This is an interesting Bill and in theory how Custody determinations should begin anyway. However, it goes further than current law in creating a rebuttable presumption and then requiring documenting the reasons for deviating from the presumption if the court does not grant joint physical custody and/or equally shared parenting time.

Read more about the current law and Physical Custody here.

Read more about Legal Custody here.

Matthew Thompson is a child custody lawyer and believes mom and dad coparenting and working together is what’s best for the child. A set schedule based on the child, with flexibility when warranted is what is best…

Child Testimony, the Court and YOU

A child testifying is an often discussed issue between parents and attorneys in child custody cases.

When parents are getting a divorce the child usually knows more than their parents think. The child most likely witnessed fights, bad conduct and sometimes even dangerous conduct.

In Mississippi law, the leading authority is Jethrow vs. Jethrow, 571 So.2d 270 (Miss. 1990). This case lays the groundwork that the Court should use when assessing child testimony. The basic premise is, as follows;

  • A child witnesses of tender years*, 12 and under for testimony purposes, testifying is subject to the discretion of the Judge. (*this tender years is different than the “tender years” doctrine favoring a mother when a child is very young, under 2-3).
  • Before allowing such testimony the Judge “should satisfy himself that the child has the ability to perceive and remember events, to understand and answer questions intelligently, and to comprehend and accept the importance of truthfulness.”

Before excluding the testimony of a child witness of tender years in a divorce proceeding, the chancellor at a minimum should follow the procedure required by Crownover v. Crownover, 33 Ill.App.3rd 327, 337 N.E.2d 56 (1975):

  • The first hurdle is whether the child is competent to testify.
  • The Judge should confer in camera (meaning in the Judge’s chambers/office) with the child and determine whether or not the child’s testimony should be heard
  • The Judge has considerable discretion in conducting proceedings of this type, meaning it’s a judgment call.
  • The court should not, however, reject outright proposed testimony of a child in custody proceedings, where the omission of such crucial testimony might be harmful to the child’s best interests.
  • The trial court should take great pains to have an in camera conference with the child to determine the competency of the child,
  • and determine the competency of any evidence which the child might present.
  • The court should determine whether the best interests of the child would be served by permitting her to testify, or
  • Whether the child should be sheltered from testifying and being subjected to a vigorous cross-examination.
  • The Judge should report the essential material matters developed at the in camera conference on the record.
  • The Court should state the reasons for allowing or disallowing the testimony of the child, and
  • The Court should note the factual information which the court developed from the conference with the child which would be considered by the court in its ultimate determinations in the case.

Generally, the testimony of a child called as a witness in a divorce case should not be excluded for reasons other than competency, or evidentiary defects, or for the protection of the child. (24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, A 415). There should not be a summary refusal to inquire as to the competency of the child to testify and also of the competency of the proposed testimony of such child in a change of custody proceeding.

imgres.jpg

“We reiterate that parents in a divorce proceeding should if at all possible refrain from calling any of the children of their marriage, of tender years at least, as witnesses, and counsel should advise their clients against doing so except in the most exigent cases. The reason and wisdom behind this precaution need no amplification. We also hold, however, as we must that no parent can be precluded from having a child of the marriage in a divorce proceeding testify simply because of that fact.” Jethrow v. Jethrow, 571 So.2d 270, 274 (Miss. 1990)(emphasis added).

A child testifying should be avoided, however if it cannot be avoided the above process will likely be used by the Court to determine if and how the child will testify.

Matthew Thompson is a Child Custody Litigation Attorney in Mississippi.

Two Family Law BILLS Died in Committee

Mississippi legislation kicked around 2 significant ideas for changes in Family Law. Both failed to become law in the State.

This “was the year” for Irretrievable Breakdown, Mississippi’s answer to No Fault Divorce.

In MS, you do NOT have a right to a divorce. You either have to have fault grounds that you can prove to the satisfaction of the Chancellor or have an agreement with your spouse to ALL issues. 48 other states have a No Fault Divorce process. MS does not.

Thirteenth. Upon application of either party, the court may
grant a divorce when the court finds there has been an
irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and that further attempts
at reconciliation are impractical or futile and not in the best
interests of the parties or family.

Secondly, a Joint Custody bill was proposed. There were several iterations of this legislation, but the gist of it was that the Court was to assume that Joint Physical Custody was in the best interest of the child when parents could not agree (and, even if they could) and if the Court found Joint Physical Custody was not in the best interest of the child it had to state why. (There were some issues with the proposed legislation as it was drafted, but this Bill found some traction and was discussed and bandied about for weeks…ultimately to no avail).

(2) * * * (a) There shall be a presumption, rebuttable by a
preponderance of evidence, that joint custody and equally shared
parenting time is in the best interest of the child. If the court
does not grant joint custody and/or equally shared parenting time,
the court shall construct a parenting time schedule which
maximizes the time each parent has with the child and ensuring the
best interest of the child is met.
(b) Upon petition of both parents, the court may grant
legal and/or physical custody to one parent.

Both bills failed and there are limited changes to MS Family Law. A blog for another day.

Matthew Thompson is a Family Law Attorney in MS and is in favor of some common sense changes in Mississippi Law.

Being NOT Divorced Does Not a Marriage Make.

In Mississippi it can be ridiculously hard to get a divorce. Untying the knot can be quite the task…

Mississippi is NOT a true “No Fault” divorce state. Instead, MS requires the parties agree to the divorce and all the terms for an Irreconcilable Differences Divorce and absent that agreement you must have Fault Grounds, that can be proven.

If no agreement and no Fault Grounds, guess what? You cannot get divorced, but that does not mean you have a marriage!

Sure, legally you are married, but there is no requirement that you reside with your spouse and even if you commit an act which would entitle your spouse to a divorce it does not mean you can get the divorce- – only if they choose to seek fault grounds against you.

Time and again legislation has been proposed to eliminate this “divorce blackmail” chasm that is MS law. Time and again any compromise on divorce law has died on the vine under the auspices of “protecting families.”

Families are not being protected by laws which create legal blackmail situations. This change, by the way, if it ever happens is contrary to divorce lawyer’s self interests!  If there is a more reasonable process to get a divorce, divorce lawyers make less money.

Marriages are wonderful blessings, unless they are not.  It’s time for Mississippi laws to reflect that.

Matthew Thompson is a Divorce attorney in Mississippi and can help you untie the knot that became a “noose.”

Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer 

 

img_6390