The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions of substance yesterday. There is a divorce case, a timber case, a felony, a visitation/in loco parentis case, an heirship case, and a UM/UIM case with an interesting procedural question.
Hodge v. Hodge, 2024-CA-00745-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversing the chancellor’s decision granting the ex-wife’s petition to set aside a final divorce degree arguing that she was forced to sign it under duress, holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in finding the Rule 60(b)(4) motion timely, that section 93-5-2(5) did not apply because the complaint was not contested, that the chancellor erred by determining that the final divorce decree should be set aside in part because of the ex-husband’s claim splitting, and that there was not clear and convincing evidence that the ex-husband committed fraud.
(9-0: Lawrence for the Court; Barnes did not participate)
Payne Logging, LLC v. Smith, 2024-CA-00439-COA (Civil – Property Damage)
Affirming the chancellor’s award of monetary damages in a landowner’s claim against a logging company that removed timber off their property without permission while logging a neighbor’s property, holding that the chancery court did not err in applying the statutory guidelines in section 95-5-10.
(10-0: Westbrooks for the Court)
Hall v. State, 2024-KA-00364-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of attempted capital murder, holding the the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and that it was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0: Wilson for the Court)
Edwards v. Johnson, 2023-CA-01271-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversing the chancellor’s decision denying a petition to establish visitation by a non-parent, holding that the chancellor erred in applying the doctrine of unclean hands before determining the petitioner’s in loco parentis status and, if necessary, reaching the issue of whether visitation was in the child’s best interest.
(6-3: Carlton for the Court; Weddle concurred in part and dissented in part without writing; Wilson dissented; Emfinger dissented, joined in part by Wilson and Weddle; Lawrence did not participate)
In the Matter of Estate of Lewis: Curry v. Thomas, 2024-CA-00346-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Reversing the chancellor’s decision establishing paternity, holding that the one-year limitation for paternity is self-executing and thus cannot be waived and that the petitioner was barred from asserting an heirship claim because she did not attempt to establish paternity until almost eighteen years after her putative father’s death.
(7-3*: Barnes for the Court; McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing; McDonald concurred in result only without writing; Westbrooks specially concurred, joined by McDonald, McCarty, and Lassitter St Pe’)
Thompson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 2024-CA-00393-COA (Civil – Insurance)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict in favor of a UM carrier, holding that the trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict for the UM carrier because there was no proof that the tortfeasor was an uninsured motorist and UM/UIM status was a question for the jury, that the UM carrier did not waive the argument that UM coverage was not applicable because the carrier did not have a duty to prove that the tortfeastor was an uninsured motorist, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.
(7-3: Barnes for the Court; McDonald dissented without writing; McCarty dissented, joined by Westbrooks and McDonald)
Practice Point – McCarty’s dissent took issue with the directed verdict being granted during the damages phase of trial in front of the jury:
Other Orders
- Davis v. State, 2023-KA-00884-COA (denying rehearing)
- Quinn v. State, 2023-KA-01143-COA (denying rehearing)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 