Tag: Contract

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of September 27, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today (and one off-cycle opinion last Thursday). There are several criminal cases (including one with a “marijuana made me do it” defense), a real property case, a lawyer money-fight case, a workers’ comp case, a domestic case, and a couple of PCR cases.

Clemts v. State, 2021-KA-01013-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence which included testimony that the defendant, the victim, and others were in an argument and the victim grabbed the defendant in an effort to get the defendant to leave the house and the defendant “wheeled around” and stabbed the victim in the abdomen.
(10-0)

Edwards v. State, 2021-KA-00261-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder and the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s post-trial motion, holding that there was no error in denying the defendant’s lesser-included culpable negligence manslaughter instruction because there was “no evidence in the record that ingesting marijuana caused the defendant to stab a man eight times.”
(10-0)

NOTE – Might need to consider keeping the reefer madness defense on the shelf.

Loblolly Properties LLC v. Le Papillon Homeowner’s Association Inc., 2021-CA-00767-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancery court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a HOA over restrictive covenants on lots that were purchased after a foreclosure sale, holding that the bank that purchased the properties after foreclosure agreed that the property was bound by the covenants and the subsequent purchaser then obtained the property by warranty deed that provided that the conveyance was subject to restrictive covenants of record.
(3-3-4: Chief Judge Barnes, Judge McCarty, and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson dissented, joined by Judge Greenlee, Judge Lawrence, and Judge Smith)

NOTE – Put this one on your cert watch list. A fractured, 3-3 majority in favor of affirming carried the day, but the four-judge dissent raised some big-picture issues with the majority opinion.

Hollis v. Acoustics, Inc., 2021-WC-01261-COA (Civil – Workers’ Compensation)
Affirming the MWCC’s ruling that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, holding that a injuries from a physical fight with racial slurs stemming from a disagreement regarding the relative merits of playing Christian rap versus country music at the worksite was not a work-related injury where the claimant also admitted that he willfully shoved the other person in a manner not necessary for self-defense.
(10-0)

Scott v. Rouse, 2021-CP-01029-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancery court’s rulings on several divorce enforcement matters after the ex-husband faked his own death, was apprehended, and then (with the help of his mother) claimed his ex-wife had wrongful retained his property, holding that all issues were procedurally barred because they were either the subject of a prior timely judgment that had not been timely appealed or the pro se appellants had failed to designated an adequate record for their appeal.
(9-0: Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Wess v. State, 2020-CP-00704-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the PCR motion asserting an illegal sentence, holding that the plaintiff’s argument that his sentence was illegal because he was not given the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea was without merit.
(6-3-0: Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Cooper v. State, 2021-CP-01004-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the “writ of habeas corpus” should have been denied because the plaintiff filed it in the circuit court of the county of incarceration (instead of the county of conviction) which lacked jurisdiction to hear the PCR motion.
(10-0)

Wooten v. State, 2021-KA-00737-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated domestic violence for shooting her boyfriend, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence that the defendant had previously stabbed her ex-husband because it was admissible to show that the shooting of her boyfriend was not an accident or mistake and that the trial court did not err in (1) denying a motion to continue because the defendant had not availed herself of the court’s “considerable powers” to compel the witness’s attendance, (2) sustaining the State’s objection to some of the defendant’s testimony about alleged threats the victim made a month before the shooting, and (3) not sending law enforcement to obtain a witness’s presence after defense counsel declined the trial court’s offer to issue a bench warrant.
(7-3-0: Judge Wilson and Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result; Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Virden v. Campbell Delong, LLP, 2021-CA-00478-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of the defendant’s motion for declaratory judgment, holding that a former partner’s claim for a greater share of proceeds from a settlement he obtained while working for the firm was barred by a written agreement governing the withdrawal, termination, or retirement of any partner from the firm.
(5-5: Judge Wilson dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Greenlee, Judge Lawrence, and Judge Emfinger.)

NOTE – Here is another one for cert-watch: a lawyer-fight over money and a 5-5 decision that leaves the trial court’s ruling in place.

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00416-COA (Sept. 22, 2022) (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of felonious abuse of a vulnerable person, holding that the sufficiency and weight of the evidence was adequate to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant’s proposed jury instruction for the offense of simple domestic violence.
(4-1-5: Judge Greenlee concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Chief Judge Barnes concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Wilson, Judge Westbrooks, Judge McDonald, and Judge Emfinger.)

Other Orders

Trotter v. State, 2020-CA-00094-COA (denying rehearing)
Thomas v. Boyd Biloxi, LLC, 2021-CA-00265-COA (denying rehearing)
McCarty v. State, 2021-KA-00418-COA (dismissing untimely pro se motion for rehearing)
Lennon v. Lowrey & Fortner, P.A., 2021-CA-00426-COA (denying appellee’s motion for appellate fees; denying motion for rehearing)
Avery v. The University of Mississippi, 2021-CA-00471-COA (granting motion for correction or modification of the Court’s opinion)
Gilmer v. State, 2022-TS-00257-COA (denying State’s motion to strike notice of appeal as untimely)
Morgan v. State, 2022-TS-00287-COA (dismissing appeal as untimely)
Rutledge v. State, 2022-TS-00677-COA (finding good cause to suspend the appeal deadline so the appeal 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 Supreme Court Decisions of July 21, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down five opinions today after its two-week break. This eclectic array of cases covers a refused jury instructions on the right to stand your ground, medical malpractice, an election contest, a real property purchase, and a request by the AG to be heard on a nonexistent request for litigation expenses.

Williams v. State, 2021-KA-00336-SCT (Criminal – Felony/Self Defense)
Reversing manslaughter conviction in a case where the defendant killed her father by stabbing him during an altercation he initiated, holding that the trial court erroneously refused the defendant’s proposed jury instructions related to her right to stand her ground.
(9-0)

NOTE – Instructions that the defendant had a right to defend herself were held insufficient. Here are the two instructions that the trial court erred by refusing:

Taylor v. Premier Women’s Health, PLLC, 2021-CA-00493-SCT (Civil – Medical Malpractice)
Affirming judgment for the defendants following a unanimous jury verdict for the defendants in a med mal case, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant challenges for cause of jurors who were patients of the defendant doctor and did not err in denying the plaintiff’s motion for JNOV that sought a finding that there was a breach of the standard of care.
(8-0: Chief Justice Randolph did not participate.)

Simmons v. Town of Goodman, 2021-EC-00563-SCT (Civil – Election Contest)
Affirming trial court’s decision upholding the municipal election commission’s finding that the plaintiff did not qualify to run for mayor, holding that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that he was domiciled in Goodman for the amount of time statutorily required to run for mayor.
(9-0)

SRHS Ambulatory Services, Inc. v. Pinehaven Group, LLC, 2020-CA-01355-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendant/seller of real property and its title insurance carrier, holding that the plaintiff’s purchase of real property was valid and enforceable because ratification of the purchase by the county board of supervisors was not required.
(5-1-3: Justice King concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Justice Griffis dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens and Justice Maxwell.)

Garcia v. State, 2021-IA-00632-SCT (Civil – Death Penalty – Post Conviction)
Vacating the trial court’s order granting the Attorney General’s “Motion for Notice of and an Opportunity to Be Heard on Requests for Litigation Expenses,” holding that the AG’s request was not only premature, but inapplicable because the defendant was represented by attorneys working for the Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel who are employed by the state and do not receive compensation or expenses for representing the defendant.
(9-0)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of June 21, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions today. Trial courts and appellees ran the table getting affirmed in all six cases. The opinions include resolution of appeals related to adverse possession, easements, custody, wrongful termination, PCR, and child support.

Jackson v. Mullins, 2021-CP-00495-COA (Civil – Torts)
Affirming summary judgment dismissing a three-ring-circus claims filed by a divorcee against the chancery court master who presided over his divorce case, together with a Mississippi Bar employee and the chairman of the Bar’s Committee on Professional Responsibility who handled a bar complaint the plaintiff filed against the special master, and an MDHS employee, holding that the trial judge who granted summary judgment was not biased and that the special master and the Bar personnel were immune from suit.
(10-0.)

Franco v. Ferrill, 2021-CA-00053-COA (Civil – Real Property/Adverse Possession)
Affirming the chancellor’s rulings in a fact-intensive adverse possession suit, holding that the record supported the chancery court’s findings that (1) the plaintiffs adversely possessed the property, (2) the plaintiffs have proved a prescriptive easement to a lake, (3) the plaintiffs were entitled to $5,000 in damages for trespass and property damage, (4) the defendants must remove a fence of pay for fence removal, and (5) a trespass claim filed by one defendant should be denied.
(Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result, joined by Judge Lawrence.)

Stuckey v. Stuckey, 2020-CA-00848-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision modifying a custody agreement, holding that the record supported (1) the chancellor’s determination that there has been an adverse, material change in circumstances; (2) the chancellor’s weighing of the Albright factors to conclude that primary physical custody should be changed from the mother to the father; (3) the chancellor’s decision modification of child support; and (4) the chancellor’s order requiring the mother to undergo quarterly drug testing.
(Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Wilson concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Leland School District v. Brown, 2021-CA-00157-COA (Civil – Contract/Wrongful Termination)
Affirming on direct appeal and cross-appeal the chancellor’s ruling in a wrongful termination claim, holding (1) that the chancellor properly denied a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, (2) that the chancellor properly found that the school board’s decision upholding the plaintiff’s termination was not supported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious, and (3) that the chancellor did not err in denying attorney’s fees.
(10-0.)

Brumfield v. State, 2020-CP-01271-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for PCR, holding that the plaintiff did not meet his burden in challenging the timeliness of his probation revocation hearing.
(10-0.)

Kelley v. Zitzelberger, 2021-CA-00119-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Child Support/Visitation)
Affirming the chancellor’s decisions pertaining to child support and visitation modifications, holding that (1) the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in denying the father’s request for child support reduction or in refusing to enforce the parties’ oral agreement to reduce child support, (2) the chancellor’s decision that the father was not entitled to have voluntary payments for extracurricular activities credited to his child support arrearage was not clearly erroneous, and (3) the chancellor’s decision modifying visitation was not manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous. The Court of Appeals also denied the mother’s motion for fees and damages under Miss. R. App. 38.
(Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Other Orders

Mingo v. McComb School District, 2020-CA-00022-COA (denying rehearing)
Butler v. State, 2020-KA-00806-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 31, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions today. Topics include the fate of a living trust that included a languishing cattle farm, unemployment benefits, alleged bolstering of the testimony of a minor who was the victim of sexual battery, alleged MDEQ violations by a lessee, and a PCR motion.

Stapp v. Stapp, 2020-CA-01282-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates)
Affirming the chancery court’s rulings in an action asking the court to divide the corpus of a living trust or, in the alternative, to make a distribution to the beneficiaries, holding that the chancellor did not err in (1) requiring that all the farm equipment be auctioned because the beneficiaries were not able to run the farm at issue and the farm had not been profitable since their father’s death, (2) requiring $50,000 to be maintained in an account for unforeseen expenses since real property remained in the trust, (3) not requiring one beneficiary to reimburse the trust for rent and utilities during her occupancy of the farmhouse in the trust and allowing her to live there indefinitely, or (4) not requiring one beneficiary to reimburse the trust for funds she received from cattle sales and not requiring the trust to reimburse the other beneficiary for expenses allegedly incurred for management of the cattle.
(Judge McCarty dissented, arguing that since the documents creating the trusts were not in the record, the trial court modified two trusts without having the terms of the trust or knowing the settlor’s intent.)

Mitchell v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security, 2021-CC-00794-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies/MDES)
Affirming the denial of unemployment benefits, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination that the claimant’s work-search requirement was not satisfied and declining to review other arguments that were not supported by citations to any authority.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Note – I understand why appellate courts often handle arguments not supported by citations to authority by stating that they are waived, but then analyzing them anyway and explaining that they are meritless. In this case, it was refreshing to see the Court of Appeals simply hold that the arguments were waived and leave it at that.

Trotter v. State, 2020-CA-00094-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to prove his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s request to be resentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Blocton v. State, 2021-KA-00197-COA (Criminal – Felony/Sexual Battery)
Affirming a conviction of sexual battery of a small child, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the victim’s foster mother, the forensic interviewer, and an investigator to testify about what the victim disclosed to them over the defendant’s argument that this testimony improperly bolstered the victim’s testimony and (2) the circuit court did not commit plain error in allowing the investigator to testify and that there was no merit to the defendant’s claim that his lawyer rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance.
(Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Smith did not participate.)

Biloxi Dock & Ice, LLC v. Back Bay Fuel and Ice, LLC,  2021-CA-00701-COA (Civil – Contract/Lease)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision upholding the county court’s findings in a case arising out of a lease dispute, holding that the county court, as fact-finder, had sufficient evidence to conclude that the purchaser/landowner failed to establish that the lessee had violated MDEQ regulations that would render the lessee in default of the lease.
(All participating judges concurred.)

NOTE – A lessor in this case was named Lesso. Lesso was sometimes referred to as Lessor in the opinion. Had Lesso been the lessee we could have met calamity.

Other Orders

Lambes v. Lambes, 2020-CA-00095-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of April 12, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down two opinions today, one criminal and one civil. The criminal opinion affirmed a conviction, finding no merit on a litany of issues. The civil opinion affirmed summary judgment on a breach of contract claim based on a personal guaranty included in a credit application with a business’s supplier.

Barnes v. State, 2021-KA-00404-COA (Criminal – Felony/Hearsay/Jury Instructions/Rule 404(b))
Affirming conviction of two counts of fondling, holding (1) no error in jury instruction re: sufficiency of unsubstantiated/uncorroborated, but not contradicted/discredited, testimony of victim of a sex crime to support guilty verdict; (2) no error in allowing testimony by investigator “based on professional experience” because not expert opinion; (3) error in allowing hearsay was harmless because the same information was also introduced through admissible source; (4) Rule 404(b) objection re: other students who reported misconduct waived because not made contemporaneously and because it showed why the school initiated an investigation; (5) no error in admitting recorded conversations between victim and defendant where intelligible recording was not produced until the first day of trial (at least partially because defense did not request more time to prepare); (6) no error in admitting purported statement of the defendant over discovery violation objection because the statement had produced in discovery and defense counsel admitted being familiar with it; (7) no merit to ineffective assistance of counsel claim; and (8) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court of appeals invoked the plain error doctrine to remand the case for correction of a scrivener’s error in the sentencing order.
(Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge McCarty concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Devine v. Cardinal Health 110, LLC, 2020-CA-01101-COA (Civil – Contract/Personal Guaranty/Affirmative Defenses)
Affirming the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff/supplier, holding that there was no error in finding that the owners of a company had personally bound themselves to pay their company’s debt to the plaintiff/supplier per the terms of a credit application that contained a personal guaranty. The court of appeals noted that the defendants did not attach affidavits in response to the summary judgment motion that addressed the guaranty:

The court of appeals then held that the plaintiff/supplier–a secured creditor– had no duty to mitigate before filing a lawsuit for damages and that the defendant that asserted fraud in response to the motion for summary judgment had waived that affirmative defense by failing to plead it in his answer to the complaint.
(All judges concurred.)

Other Orders

Hartzler v. Bosarge, 2019-CT-01606 (granting motion to dismiss appeal as interlocutory)

Doe v. Doe, 2020-CA-00853-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Braswell v. Braswell, 2020-CA-01090-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Nunn v. State, 2021-TS-01371-COA (granting pro se motion for out-of-time appeal and granting motion to withdraw and substitute counsel)

Hand Down List

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of March 8, 2022

There are six opinions from the Mississippi Court of Appeals today on a wide range of topics, including a holding that a defendant’s failure to respond to a complaint filed on March 6, 2020, until thirty-one days after service of process constituted “excusable neglect” in light of the COVID shutdowns at the time.

Hamer v. State, 2019-KA-01633-COA (Criminal – Felony/Evidence/Rule 403/Golden Rule)
Affirming conviction on two counts of capital murder and armed robbery and sentence to life in prison without parole, holding primarily that (1) wiretapped phone calls between the convicted and his father, whose drug trafficking enterprise the convicted had worked for, were admissible to show motive and tell “the complete story” to the jury, (2) the evidence was sufficient to establish nexus between the killing and the underlying felony to constitute capital murder, (3) and there was no impermissible Golden Rule argument at closing.
(Judge Westbrooks wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Judge McDonald.)

Crockett v. State, 2021-CP-00022-COA (Civil – PCR/Time Bar)
Affirming circuit court’s denial of a pro se motion for post-conviction collateral relief, holding that the claim of an involuntary guilty plea was both time-barred and meritless.
(All judges concurred, Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Erves v. Hosemann, 2020-CA-00467-COA (Civil – Property/Daubert)
Affirming chancellor’s decision denying relief in an action for an injunction to stop the use of a driveway and for monetary damages, holding that the petitioners failed to establish legal title to the subject property and specifically holding that the defendants’ expert witnesses were qualified and that the chancellor’s ruling was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Practice Point: Appellants got dinged on their Daubert challenge for arguing reliability on appeal when the only issue raised at the trial court was the experts’ qualifications:


(All judges concurred, Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Archer v. Harlow’s Casino Resort & Spa, 2020-CP-00930-COA (Civil – Other/Default/Excusable Neglect)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s grant of the defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the defendant showed excusable neglect when it sought an extension of time to answer the complaint thirty-one days after being served and holding that the circuit clerk did not err by correcting a mistake and removing an entry of default, but holding that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint without prejudice and allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint under Rule 15(a).

ADDENDUM – COVID AND THE LAW: The defendant casino blamed the COVID-19 pandemic for being late to respond to the complaint. The casino was served with process on March 9, 2020, three days before the governor of Kentucky (where the casino’s counsel is located) issued a state of emergency and one week before Governor Reeves entered an order in Mississippi closing the casino. The casino asserted that these restrictions made it difficult to gather information from the closed casino in order to prepare and answer. The circuit court granted the late-filed extension request “in light of the current pandemic and government orders restricting operations and travel.” The court of appeals held that this was not an abuse of the circuit court’s broad discretion in this realm. In this case: COVID shutdown in March 2020 = “excusable neglect.”
(All judges concurred, Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without written opinion.)

Everett v. Dykes, 2020-CP-01331-COA (Civil – Property Damage/Recusal/Rule 48B)
Dismissing a pro se appeal of an order denying a motion for recusal of the circuit judge, holding that the appellant failed to comply with the procedure required by Rule 48B of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure for an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a recusal motion.
(Judge Lawrence dissented without separate written opinion.)

Rives v. Ishee, 2020-CA-01328-COA (Civil – Contract/Statute of Limitations)
Affirming the chancellor’s dismissal of a breach of contract lawsuit, holding that the plaintiffs’ second lawsuit was time-barred because they did not file suit until more than three years after they learned they would receive no money from the restaurant and the statute of limitations was not tolled during the first lawsuit because it was dismissed for want of prosecution. The court of appeals also held that the remedy of quantum meruit was inapplicable because there was a contract between the parties.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Greenlee.)

Other Orders

Westmoreland v. State, 2020-KA-00509-COA (denying motion for rehearing)
Winters v. State, 2020-KA-00809-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Complete Hand Down List

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of March 1, 2022

Today’s court of appeals opinions involve a reputed patent troll, alienation of affection, and a bureaucratic nightmare.

International Association of Certified Home Inspectors and Nick Gromicko v. HomeSafe Inspection, Inc., 2020-CA-00520-COA (Civil – Contract/Misrepresentation/Damages Proof)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s judgment on a jury verdict in a suit that included claims for breach of contract, conversion, and negligent misrepresentation filed by a patent troll holder against a trade association after a deal between the two went poorly. This story began when the patent holder filed a patent infringement suit against a member of the trade association, and the trade association sprang into action and made an effort to strike a deal with the patent holder. The parties reached a deal where patent holder would grant a bulk license to the trade association’s membership to use the patented technology and would agree not to sue any trade association member and, in exchange, the trade association would pay the patent holder a portion of the membership dues it collected. A contract was entered and the a dispute arose about how to carry out the contract that centered around how the license was presented on the trade association’s website. The patent holder filed suit and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the patent holder against the trade association and its founder. The court of appeals made three main holdings. First, the court of appeals held that the patent holder, which had been administratively dissolved by the Secretary of State at the time the contract was entered, had standing to sue because the former entity had been reinstated by the time the lawsuit was filed. Second, the court of appeals held that the patent holder did not prove compensatory damages for breach of contract and conversion with “reasonable certainty” because the damages model used at trial was prepared by unidentified individuals who did not use any recognized methodology and who did not testify at trial. Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed and remanded to the circuit court to determine nominal damages for the breach of contract and for conversion. Third, the court of appeals discussed the difference between a “misrepresentation of fact” and a “promise of future conduct” and held that the trade association’s “lofty promises” made during negotiations were not misrepresentations about then-existing facts and therefore reversed the judgment of liability on the negligent misrepresentation claim and entered judgment in favor of the trade association dismissing that claim.
(All participating judges concurred.)

Dew v. Harris, 2020-CA-01261-COA (Civil – Torts/Alienation of Affection)
Reversing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing ex-husband’s alienation of affection lawsuit, holding that there was a genuine dispute over material facts in the form of opposing affidavits and that the trial court had improperly considered the credibility and the weight of the evidence presented during the summary judgment proceedings. This case was remanded for further proceedings.
(All participating judges concurred.)

In the Interest of L.T., K.T., E.T., and S.T.: Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services v. Youth Court of Warren County, Mississippi, 2021-SA-00069-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Youth Court)
Reversing the youth court’s decision ordering CPS to pay attorney fees and travel expenses to a minors’ guardian under Rule 11, holding that Rule 11 cannot be used to award sanctions against a party that has not actually filed anything even when another party has endured a “bureaucratic nightmare.”
(All participating judges concurred.)

Other Decisions

Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development v. General Reinsurance Corporation, 2020-WC-761-COA (denying motion for rehearing).

Bryant v. Bryant, 2020-CA-883-COA (denying motion for rehearing, Barnes and Wilson would grant).

Complete Hand Down List

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.)

Mississippi Court of Appeals Hand Downs for February 8, 2022

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Mississippi v. Brown and Brown of Mississippi, LLC, 2020-CA-1414-COA (Civil – Contract/Garnishment)
Brown obtained two judgments against a BCBS insurance agent, enrolled the judgments, and then filed suit to enforce the judgments and suggestions for writs of garnishment against BCBS and others. BCBS denied it was indebted to the agent. The circuit court ordered BCBS to tender the agent’s commissions to Brown. BCBS appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the circuit court and rendered judgment in favor of BCBS, finding that the agent had assigned her interest in the commissions to a third party long before the writ of garnishment was served. The court of appeals also held that BCBS was entitled to its costs under section 11-35-45 and remanded to the circuit court to address that issue.

Ladner v. State, 2020-KA-299-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming a conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that it was harmless error for the the circuit court to exclude non-hearsay testimony under the hearsay rule and that the circuit court did not err admitting body cam footage. The opinion lists a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as one of the issues raised, but there is no discussion of that in the majority opinion, the special concurrence, or the dissent.

Nowell v. Stewart, 2020-CA-728-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Child Support)
Affirming the chancellor’s judgment increasing the child support modification based on a material change in circumstances.

Mangum v. State, 2020-CP-1205-COA (Civil – Post-Conviction Relief)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a motion for PCR based on the statute of limitations and the successive-motions bar.

United Services Automobile Association v. Moffatt, 2020-CA-1391-COA (Civil – Insurance/UM UIM)
The county court granted summary judgment in favor of a UM carrier, finding that the amended complaint naming the UM carrier was time barred because it was filed more than three years after the accident. The plaintiff appealed to the circuit court and the summary judgment was reversed. The UM carrier appealed to the court of appeals and the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court and remanded the case to the county court. The court of appeals held that there was a genuine fact issue for a jury as to when the plaintiff’s UM claim accrued based on when it could be reasonably known that the damages suffered exceed the limits of insurance available to the alleged tortfeasor.

Lowe v. State, 2019-KA-1621 (Criminal – Felony/Confrontation Clause)
Affirming a conviction of the sale of cocaine and sentencing as a habitual offender, holding that an officer’s testimony that a non-testifying confidential informant said she had bought drugs from the defendant in the past violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment but was harmless error.

Other Orders
6 Rehearing Denials

Link to Hand Down List