The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions today covering diverse subject matter. There is a zoning exception case, a custody case, a personal injury case considering a grant of summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case, a marital property division case analyzing whether a PSA was ambiguous, and a PCR case with a concurrence discussing Howell/Rowland I/Rowland II.
Keenum v. City of Moss Point, 2021-CA-01044-COA (Civil – Other/Zoning)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision that affirmed the mayor’s decision to approve a special exception to a zoning ordinance, holding that the decision to allow a for-profit development in a residential-zoned area under an exception for “semi-public recreational area” (which was not defined in the ordinance) was reversible error because that reading would render the prohibition against “commercial use” in the ordinance meaningless.
(8-1-0: McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Lawrence did not participate.)
D.W.K. v. Youth Court of Lincoln County, 2019-CP-00451-COA; 2020-CP-01307-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the youth court’s denial of motions to consider new evidence two years after adjudication of abuse and neglect and placement of five minor children with their maternal aunt, holding that the youth court had jurisdiction; service of process was proper; that the youth court’s decision was not manifestly wrong or erroneous, was based on substantial evidence, and favored the best interest of the children; and that the record on appeal was sufficient.
(10-0)
Babin v. Wendelta, Inc., 2022-CA-00341-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment for a fast food restaurant in a slip-and-fall case, holding that “the record contained ample proof” of a dangerous condition where multiple witnesses including restaurant employees testified that the mat was slippery on the date of the fall and that the vestibule where the mat was located held condensation.
(9-1-0: Lawrence concurred in result only WOSWO.)
Practice Point – I have noticed ANSI standards appearing more frequently in my practice. I suspect these two sentences will make their way into more than one brief:
Blanchard v. Blanchard, 2022-CA-00356-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversing the chancery court’s ruling based on parol evidence after finding that a Property Settlement Agreement was ambiguous, holding that the PSA was unambiguous and that it entitled the ex-husband to half of the net proceeds of the sale of the former marital home even though the ex-wife had refinanced the home.
(10-0)
Roberson v. State, 2021-CA-01182-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming order granting in part and denying in part a PCR motion, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to an exception from the statutory bars and that, in any event, there was no merit to his claim that his plea was involuntary or that his counsel was ineffective.
(6-4-0: Westbrooks, McDonald, and McCarty concurred in part and in the result WOSWO; Wilson concurred in part and in the result, joined by McDonald and McCarty and joined in part by Westbrooks.)
Note – Judge Wilson’s concurrence discussed the state of the “fundamental-rights exception” in light of the Mississippi Supreme Court in Howell overruling Rowland I and Rowland II, and noted that the Supreme Court had not squarely addressed whether the successive motions bar is substantive or procedural:
Other Orders
Buchanan v. State, 2021-CP-01069-COA (denying rehearing)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 