Tag: Arbitration Agreement

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 23, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions today. There is an arbitration enforcement decision, a legal malpractice settlement enforcement decision, an appeal of a second-degree murder conviction, a wrongful termination decision, and a PCR decision.

Chandler v. State, 2020-CP-01060-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that most of the claims were procedurally barred and all of them were without merit.
(10-0)

Young v. Freese & Goss PLLC, 2020-CA-01280-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the court court’s order granting in part a motion to compel arbitration, holding (1) that the circuit court did not err in granting arbitration to those plaintiffs whose attorney contracts had an arbitration provision, holding that the defendants did not waive arbitration under the peculiar facts of this case even though the motion to compel arbitration was not heard for more than five years, (2) that the plaintiffs had not specifically and clearly alleged fraudulent inducement, (3) that it was not error to compel arbitration over the plaintiffs’ argument that the attorneys breached their fiduciary duty and that the arbitration provision was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and (4) that it was not error to apply the arbitration provision to conduct that occurred before it was executed.
(8-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty did not participate.)

Turner & Associates P.L.L.C. v. Estate of Watkins, 2021-CA-00258-COA (Civil – Legal Malpractice)
Affirming the circuit court’s order enforcing a settlement release signed by a former client agreeing to release malpractice claims against a law firm for $300,000 and ordering the law firm to pay the $288,000 balance, holding that the settlement release was not barred by the statute of frauds, that the amount bargained was not unreasonable, that facts deemed admitted to requests for admissions that were not answered were conclusively established, that the law firm waived its defenses to the legal malpractice claim by negotiating a release, and that there was no requirement to file a suggestion of death.
(8-1-1: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald dissented without separate written opinion.)

NOTE – These facts are wild and the opinion is worth you time. A non-lawyer employee lied to the plaintiff about filing suit and a trial date and the plaintiff only found out eight years later. The plaintiff negotiated with the same non-lawyer employee and received $18,000 and later a promise for $288,000 more, but the law firm did not sent a release. Litigation ensued over the agreement. Sadly, the plaintiff died of cancer during the litigation and did not get to see things made right.

Moffett v. State, 2021-KA-00622-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder, holding that (1) the defendant did not prove ineffective assistance of counsel related to the failure to request a culpable-negligence instruction, failure to request an accident or misfortune instruction, or for admitting that there was no evidentiary basis for a heat-of-passion manslaughter jury instruction; (2) the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress her statement on coercion grounds; and (3) the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(8-1-1: Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion.)

Avery v. The University of Mississippi, 2021-CA-00471-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision affirming the University Personnel Action Review Board’s (PARB) decision upholding the plaintiff’s termination, holding that (1) the circuit court had jurisdiction; (2) the plaintiff was afforded due process despite her arguments that she was not given proper notice, not provided with adequate reasons for her termination prior to her hearing, not given the PARB’s findings of fact, and the investigation was inadequate; (3) the termination did not violate the First Amendment; and (4) the termination was supported by substantial evidence including evidence of disrespectful and confrontational behavior towards coworkers.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Other Orders

Murray v. State, 2021-KA-00264-COA (denying rehearing)

Keys v. Military Department Gulfport, 2021-WC-00352-COA (denying rehearing)

Pipkin v. State, 2021-CA-00517-COA (denying rehearing)

Unifund CCR Partners v. Estate of Jordan, 2021-CA-00761-COA (denying rehearing)

Siggers v. State, 2021-CP-00985-COA (recalling mandate so appellant’s pro se motion for rehearing can proceed on the merits)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 16, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down seven opinions today. There are three criminal cases that address jury instructions, improper prosecutorial argument, and the admissibility of a letter aimed at the credibility of a State’s witness. There is also a divorce case addressing issues several issues related to alimony, a case deciding whether the right to arbitration was waived, a case seeking to impose a constructive trust on land, and an unemployment case.

Vector Transportation Co. v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security, 2021-CC-00574-COA (Civil – State Board and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court and MDES Board of Review’s finding that the claimant was entitled to unemployment benefits, holding that the circuit court’s determination that the employer failed to prove that the claimant was discharged for misconduct was not contrary to law, arbitrary or capricious, or not supported by substantial evidence.
(9-0: Chief Judge Barnes did not participate.)

Clay v. State, 2021-KA-00790-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of uttering a forgery and sentence as a nonviolent habitual offender, holding that the circuit court did not err in refusing the defendant’s mistake-of-fact jury instruction considering all jury instructions read together.
(9-1-0: Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Murry v. State, 2020-KA-01363-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding (1) that that the prosecutor made an improper “send-a-message” argument during closing but that absent the prosecutor’s improper argument the jury would have found the defendant guilty and (2) that the circuit court did not commit plain error in admitting photographs that the defendant did not object to. The Court of Appeals also declined to decide the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim and recognized that it was preserved for PCR.
(10-0)

NOTE – Here are the “send-a-message” comments that the Court of Appeals held “[w]ithout question . . . run afoul of the clear direction given by the highest appellate courts in our state and nation” and that the defendant’s attorney did not object to at trial:

Lewis v. State, 2021-KA-00736-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of conspiracy and armed robbery, holding that the trial court did not err by excluding a letter the defendant sought to introduce that accused a witness of past instances of false accusations because it was hearsay and did not fall within an exception to the inadmissibility of hearsay.
(9-1-0: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Phang v. Phang, 2021-CA-00752-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part several aspects of the chancery court’s judgment of divorce, holding that the chancellor (1) did not err in the award of permanent alimony, (2) erred in not specifying what happened to the alimony obligation if the ex-husband predeceased the ex-wife, (3) erred in requiring the ex-husband to maintain an excessive life insurance policy naming the ex-wife as the beneficiary, (4) erred in ordering the ex-husband to provide annual proof of income to his ex-wife.
(10-0)

White v. White, 2021-CP-00333-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s dismissal of a son’s complaint against his mother seeking damages and to impose a constructive trust on land he had deeded his mother, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the claim for damages was barred by the statute of limitations but did err to the extent it dismissed the claim to recover and impose a constructive trust because the 10-year statute of limitations had not run on those claims when the complaint was filed.
(10-0)

Note – There was a lengthy footnote to remand declaration, discussing the odd situation presented where the Court of Appeals was remanding to the Harrison County Circuit Court a claim seeking to impose a trust on land located in Pike and Lincoln County.

Purvis v. Mar-Jac Poultry MS, LLC, 2021-CA-00039-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision granting the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the defendant did not waive arbitration by refusing the plaintiff’s pre-suit arbitration demand or by filing a counterclaim contemporaneously with its motion to compel arbitration and holding that the arbitration provision requiring an arbitration demand within 120 days after notice of a claim did not and could not alter the three-year statute of limitations.
(6-1-2: Judge Westbrooks dissented, joined by Judge McDonald and joined in part by Judge McCarty; Judge Smith did not participate.)

Other Orders

Wofford v. State, 2020-KA-01341-COA (denying rehearing)

Adams v. State, 2020-KA-01383-COA (denying rehearing)

Smith v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety, 2021-SA-00020-COA (denying rehearing)

Frost v. State, 2021-CA-00152-COA (denying rehearing)

Edwards v. State, 2021-KA-00259-COA (denying rehearing)

Carter v. Total Foot Care, 2021-CA-00610-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of May 10, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals set a new record since the launch of this blog by handing down fourteen opinions. After briefly contemplating a dash to the exit, I decided to slog through all of them so you don’t necessarily have to. Needless to say, there is something for everybody today!

(Apologies for the all-but-certain uptick in typos)

Fugler v. Bank of Brookhaven, 2021-CA-00303-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/Premises Liability)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a slip and fall case, holding that the plaintiff, who allegedly tripped on a floor mat but testified she did not see the mat before tripping, failed rebut the defendant’s summary judgment motion and supporting affidavit stating that the bank had no knowledge of prior incidents with its floor mats or any issues with the mat involved, that around 300 customers entered the bank daily and the bank was not aware of any prior mat-related trips or complaints, that the mat was heavy-duty commercial grade and was replaced annually to prevent wear, and that bank employees constantly monitored the floors.
(All judges concurred.)

Keys v. Military Department Gulfport, 2021-WC-00352-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Reversing the Commission’s finding that the Employer/Carrier was entitled to a credit for indemnity payments that the claimant received but assigned back to the employer during the time the claimant was receiving paid sick leave, holding that since the claimant was awarded permanent total disability benefits, section 25-3-95(2)(b) (prohibiting a state employee from using accrued personal and/or medical leave and receiving workers’ comp to earn more than 100% of his state-employment wages) did not apply.
(Judge Wilson specially concurred, joined in part by Judge McCarty.)

NOTE – I think Judge Wilson’s special concurrence provides a clearer path forward in workers’ comp cases: Regardless of whether the indemnity benefits during the time in question were classified as TTD or PTD, the claimant was entitled to a total of 450 weeks of indemnity benefits (however classified) and since the claimant did not receive any indemnity benefits during the period he was assigning benefits back to the Employer, the Employer/Carrier were not entitled to a credit for those weeks.

Smith v. State, 2021-CP-00099-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a pro se plaintiff’s PCR petition, holding that the plaintiff presented no evidence to show a reasonable ground for the trial court to believe he was incompetent to plead guilty.
(All judges concurred.)

Prystupa v. Rankin County Board of Supervisors, 2020-CA-01049-COA (Civil – MTCA/Statute of Limitations/Latent Injury)
Affirming the dismissal of a flooding damage MTCA claim based on the running of the statute of limitations, holding that this claim was an MTCA negligence claim subject to a one-year statute of limitations that began to run when the plaintiff knew or should have known of both the injury and its probable cause. In this case, the Court of Appeals held that the statute of limitations began to run when the plaintiff knew of the flooding (the injury) and knew it was due to a blocked drain (the cause) as opposed to when he found out that crushed pipe caused the blocked drain (i.e. caused the cause). The Court of Appeals also affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion to aleter or amend based on fraudulent concealment and the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint to add claims of nuisance and trespass.
(Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

TAKE HEED, lest you fall victim to the distinction between “statutory tolling” and “MTCA tolling”:

Schmidt v. Schmidt, 2020-CA-01253-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision granting sole physical custody to the mother, holding that there was no error in finding that the deterioration of the parties’ ability to co-parent constituted a material change in circumstances entitling the mother to sole physical custody and no error in the application of the Albright factors.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Smith v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety, 2021-SA-00020-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s judgment affirming the Mississippi Employee Appeals Board’s decision upholding the claimant’s termination, holding that the claimant’s procedural due process rights were not violated because he was provided notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard, that his substantive due process rights and rights under the MS State Personnel Board rules were not violated because the MEAB’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, and that the claim that the claimant was terminated because of communications with his wife and that the MEAB’s decision was based on uncorroborated hearsay was without merit.
(All judges concurred.)

McIntosh Transport, LLC v. Love’s Travel Stop & Country Stores, Inc., 2021-CA-00154-COA (Civil – Contract/Arbitration)
Reversing the circuit court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that the contract containing the contract was not binding on the plaintiff because it was signed by a 19-year-old who signed his grandfather’s name and whose only authority was the actual authority to retrieve the truck following repairs that did not include the authority to bind the company to arbitration.
(Chief Judge Barnes concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Carlton concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Case v. Case, 2020-CA-01047-COA (Civil – Custody/Equitable Distribution of Marital Property/Albright Factors/Ferguson Factors)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision on child custody, but reversing the chancellor’s decision on the equitable distribution of marital property. Regarding custody, the Court of Appeals held that the chancellor’s application of the Albright factors was supported by substantial evidence. Regarding equitable distribution, the Court of Appeals affirmed all of the chancellor’s findings except his valuation of the marital property which it reversed and rendered due to a calculation error.
(Judge Wilson and Judge Westbrooks concur in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

MY TAKE – Few, if any, of us are in the legal field because of a proclivity for math yet it still haunts us all.

Wadley v. Hubbs, 2021-CA-00866-COA (Civil – Real Property/Notice of Appeal)
Reversing the circuit court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal from a county court judgment as untimely, holding that the plaintiff’s notice of appeal that was stamped “Filed” after the county court’s judgment but before disposition of the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the judgment was effective and timely even though the header of the notice said “IN THE COUNTY COURT” because the body of the notice made it clear the plaintiff was appealing to the circuit court and the notice was stamped “Filed” by the circuit clerk.
(All judges concurred.)

Murray v. State, 2021-KA-00264-COA (Criminal – Felony/Hearsay/Rule 412)
Affirming conviction of statutory rape, holding that the circuit court erred in allowing the victim’s mother’s to testify about a neighbor’s out-of-court statement, but that it was harmless and “essentially cumulative evidence of non-criminal activity that [the defendant] admitted.” The Court of Appeals also held that the circuit court did not err in denying the defendant’s ore tenus request to compel the victim’s counseling records because even though a determination of whether the records were privileged could not be made until the records were examined, the defendant did not comply with Rule 412 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. The Court of Appeals also held that the plaintiff’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request an alibi instruction, failure to object to hearsay, failure to request a limiting instruction regarding the hearsay testimony, and failure to make a timely request for the victim’s counseling records did not entitled him to relief on this appeal.
(All judges concurred.)

Bailey v. State, 2021-KA-00281-COA (Criminal – Felony/Lindsey Brief)
Affirming conviction of fondling of a six-year-old and sentence to life imprisonment as a violent habitual offender, noting that the defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a Lindsey brief and holding that the defendant’s pro se brief arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and that his indictment was not marked “filed” was factually mistaken and without merit.
(Judge Smith did not participate.)

Finley v. PERS, 2021-SA-00089-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies/PERS/Disability)
Reversing the circuit court’s judgment affirming PERS Medical Board’s denial of the plaintiff’s claim for non-duty-related disability retirement benefits, holding that PERS’s assessment of the plaintiff’s job requirements and ability to perform her job was arbitrary and capricious. The case was remanded for PERS to determine if the plaintiff could perform the true duties of registrar with her disability and the support staff, if any, she had at the time.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in result without separate written opinion.)

Boyd v. MDOC, 2021-CC-00459-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies/MDOC)
Affirming the MDOC’s disciplinary actions against the plaintiff whose oversight led to MDOC’s failure to issue an arrest warrant for a probationer who did not report to his assigned probation office upon release from MDOC custody who then killed two Brookhaven police officers in the line of duty, holding that the plaintiff failed to meet her burdens of proof and persuasion to overcome the presumption of correctness due MDOC’s decision.
(All judges concurred.)

Parker v. Ross, 2020-CA-01055-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancery court’s grant of summary judgment in a claim alleging mismanagement of a trust and to recover real property that was allegedly improperly sold. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor’s judgment in part, holding that any claims governed by the three-year statute of limitations were time-barred. The Court of Appeals also reversed the chancellor’s judgment in part, holding that the allegations related to the mismanagement of the trust were subject to a ten-year statute of limitations and that one of the plaintiffs had created a genuine issue of material fact as to his unsoundness of mind and remanded this matter to the chancery court for further proceedings.
(Judge Emfinger dissented, joined by Judge Wilson and Judge Greenlee and joined in part by Judge McDonald.)

Other Orders

Lawrence v. State, 2021-TS-1324-COA (providing, on the court’s own motion, the appellant and his attorney, Wayne Dowdy, one final opportunity to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely)

Phew…

We did it, folks.

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of Feb. 15, 2022

Anderson v. S&S Properties, LLC, 2021-CA-33-COA (Civil – Real Property/Summary Judgment/Tax Sale)
Affirming summary judgment granted by the chancery court setting aside a tax sale and ordering the county to refund the purchase price to the purchaser, holding that the purchaser had standing and that the county failed to serve proper notice of the tax sale to the assessed property owners. Note: The COA held that the purchaser had standing to sue in this particular case because the amended version of Miss. Code Ann. § 27-25-27(2) did not apply retroactively. The amended statute provides: “No purchaser of land at any tax sale, nor holder of the legal title under him by descent or distribution, shall have any right of action to challenge the validity of the tax sale.”

Ford v. State, 2020-KA-278-COA (Criminal – Felony/Criminal Procedure)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding:
1. The defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict under Weathersby because the Weathersby issue was procedurally barred and because Weathersby did not apply in this case where there was contradicting.
2. The circuit court did not err by not allowing the defendant to represent himself because the defendant did not expressly make such a request.
3. The circuit court did not err in allowing an investigator to testify about his recollection of a verbal statement the defendant gave to law enforcement.
4. The defendant’s counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for not proposing a “stand your ground” instruction (trial strategy), not filing a motion for new trial or JNOV (this was deficient, but not “prejudicial” in that there is no reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the trial would have been different), not arguing the Weathersby rule (Weathersby was already held to be inapplicable), and not subpoenaing eyewitness testimony (trial strategy).
5. There was no prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument when the prosecutor argued that the trajectory of the bullet showed that the defendant and the victim were not fighting for the gun.
6. The defendant’s should not be reversed as a result of cumulative error because the other issues on appeal were without merit.

Diversicare of Meridian, LLC v. Shelton, 2020-CA-1362-COA (Civil – Contract/Arbitration Agreement)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a wrongful death nursing-home case, holding that the nursing home failed to provide sufficient proof that the resident gave her daughter, who signed admissions paperwork including an arbitration agreement, authority to bind the resident to arbitrate any future disputes arising from her stay.
NOTE: Although the court of appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to compel arbitration, it held that the circuit court erred in ruling that written authority was required. Specifically, the court of appeals held: “[A] mentally competent individual may orally grant authority to another person to sign documents required for admission to a nursing home.”

Rutland v. Burroughs, 2020-CA-1100-COA (Civil – Torts/Civil Procedure)
Affirming the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing a malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress lawsuit after the plaintiff’s attorney withdrew, the 60-day period given to the plaintiff to retain new counsel or proceed pro se passed without any such action taken by the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not file a timely response to the motion for summary judgment.

Robinson v. Smith, 2020-CA-1249-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/Counter-Claim/Civil Procedure)
Reversing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment that was based on a default judgment on a counter-claim, holding based on the plain language of Rules 7, 12, and 13, the counter-claim was procedurally improper because it was not asserted in the answer and the plaintiff therefore has no obligation to respond to it.

Lambes v. Lambes, 2020-CA-95-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Custody)
Affirming the chancery court’s ruling that it was in the best interest and welfare of the children to place them in the father’s custody, holding that the father was not precluded from being awarded custody after he admitted to the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment when that admission was based on the chancellor’s statement that all rights regarding custody etc would be preserved, and that there were not misrepresentations in the GAL report warranting reversal when the record showed the chancellor made his decision based upon independent findings of fact.

Tillman v. KLLM Transport, 2021-WC-57-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp/One-Year Limitations Period)
Affirming the MWCC’s dismissal of a workers’ comp claim based on the one-year limitations period, holding that the dismissal of the workers’ comp claim for the claimant’s failure to file a pre-hearing statement is a “rejection of the claim” sufficient to start the one-year limitations period under section 71-3-53 regardless of when or if a B-31 was filed.

Shannon v. Shannon, 2020-CA-847-COA (en banc) (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancery court’s rulings granting divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, granting a permanent restraining order against and divesting title from the at-fault party, applying the Ferguson factors, and denying a motion to continue or to allow remote participation.

Williams v. State, 2020-CP-950-COA (en banc) (Civil – PCR)
Reversing the circuit court’s denial of a pro se motion for post-conviction collateral relief, holding that the circuit court did not have sufficient evidence to revoke the defendant’s post-release supervision because (1) the defendant was not convicted of the crime that prompted the revocation of his PRS and (2) there was insufficient evidence in the record that the defendant had failed to pay fees, fines, and restitution. This case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Other Orders
4 Denials of Motions for Rehearing

Enter your email address to have the opinion summaries and other posts emailed to you as soon as they are published.
(You can always unsubscribe later.)