Jessica Lynn Tucker Tullos v. James Catlin Tullos, 230 So. 3d 330

James and Jessica Tullos divorced in March 2014; Jessica received primary physical custody and James had visitation with $1,000/month child support ordered.
James filed a petition to modify custody in August 2015, alleging Jessica used illegal drugs in the children's presence and had relocated with the son.
The case was continued multiple times by orders signed by the chancellor on the respective hearing dates; Jessica signed the first continuance order but did not sign later continuances and did not appear at the final hearing.
A guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed and recommended custody to James, citing school absences and educational disruption for the younger child and difficulty contacting Jessica.
On May 19, 2016 the chancellor orally found a substantial material change and, after an Albright factors analysis, awarded physical custody to James; a nunc pro tunc written order was signed July 1, 2016.
Jessica appealed, arguing she was not properly noticed under M.R.C.P. 81(d) because subsequent continuance orders were not provided and a new summons should have issued.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court lost jurisdiction / failed to give adequate notice under M.R.C.P. 81(d) because subsequent continuance orders were not provided and no new summons issued	Jessica: initial summons and first continuance were insufficient; failure to receive later continuance orders meant a new Rule 81 summons was required	James: Rule 81(d)(5) permits an order signed on the day of the scheduled hearing to continue the matter without a new summons; initial summons preserved by continuance orders signed by the chancellor	Court held Rule 81(d)(5) was satisfied; no new summons required because the chancellor signed continuance orders on the hearing dates; Jessica had adequate notice and process was not defective

Brown v. Tate, 95 So. 3d 745 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (central consideration under Rule 81 is adequacy of notice of hearing date/time/place)
Vincent v. Griffin, 872 So. 2d 676 (Miss. 2004) (notice of hearing details is a critical Rule 81 inquiry)
Bailey v. Fischer, 946 So. 2d 404 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (order entered on day of initially scheduled hearing preserves summons for later continued date)
Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So. 2d 1250 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (court may continue custody matters by order signed on the day set without new summons)
Pearson v. Browning, 106 So. 3d 845 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (actual notice does not cure defective process)
Caplinger v. Caplinger, 108 So. 3d 992 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review for chancery factual findings)
Tucker v. Prisock, 791 So. 2d 190 (Miss. 2001) (de novo review for legal questions)
Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (framework for evaluating best interests in custody modifications)