Tag: Conversion

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of April 25, 2023

The Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today and there is something for just about every practice area. There are two appellate jurisdiction cases, a will contest, a breach of contract case, two direct criminal appeals, a divorce/marital estate division case, a breach of termite contract case, an intra-church lawsuit, and an intentional tort/attorney’s fees case.

Herning v. Lakeview S/C Partners, Ltd., 2021-CA-01427-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of the defendant’s appeal from summary judgment for the plaintiff entered by the county court, holding that the defendant failed to pay the cost bond for his appeal within the thirty-day time limit so the circuit court lacked jurisdiction.
(8-2: McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion; Lawrence dissented without separate written opinion.)

Pearson v. Eubanks, 2022-CA-00011-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Reversing the chancery court’s dismissal of a will contest, holding that the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations when the filed the will contest provided them stating to contest the will on undue influence grounds.
(10-0)

Lewis v. State, 2021-KA-00472-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first and second degree murder, holding:
1. No error in transferring venue that the defendant requested.
2. No error in denying Castle Doctrine and stand-your-ground jury instructions.
3. The doctrine of retroactive misjoinder did not apply.
4. Limiting the defense’s cross-examination of a witness about his pending indictment was harmless error.
5. The objection to the investigator’s testimony about exit wounds was waived.
6. No speedy trial violation (issue raised pro se)
7. No error in denying the motion to quash and dismiss the indictment (issue raised pro se)
8. The State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct (issue raised pro se)
9. No error in allowing the jury to review transcript of the defendant’s recorded statement (issue raised pro se)
10. Evidence was sufficient and the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of it (issue raised pro se)
(7-3-0: Barnes and Lawrence concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Smith concurred in part and in the result, joined by Barnes and Lawrence.)

Kloss v. Bay Pest Control, Inc., 2021-CA-01117-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming summary judgment dismissing breach of termite-prevention contract and negligence claim, holding that the presence of termites alone did not support the breach of contract claim or the negligence claim.
(8-2-0: Westbrooks and McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Underwood v. State, 2021-CP-01123-COA (Civil – Other)
Dismissing direct appeal of a guilty plea for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice.
(10-0)

Christian v. State, 2021-KA-00898-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault upon receipt of a Lindsey brief and the Court’s review of the record, holding that there were no arguable issues for appeal.
(10-0)

Lewis v. Lewis, 2022-CA-00016-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancery court’s line of demarcation for division of the marital estate and award of alimony, holding that the chancellor was well within her discretion to use a December 2020 temporary order as the line of demarcation rather that the trial date and that the chancellor’s alimony findings were sufficient and her ruling was not ab abuse of discretion.
(10-0)

Miller v. Board of Trustees of Second Baptist Church of Starkville, 2020-CA-01384-COA (Civil – Other)
Reversing a monetary judgment following a jury trial, holding that the board of trustees of a church lacked standing to sue the church’s senior pastor and chairman of its deacons for breach of fiduciary duties and other claims, holding that the board lacked authority to file the lawsuit without the church members’ approval and lacked authority to maintain suit after a majority of members voted against it.
(5-2-3: Westbrooks and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Greenlee dissented without separate written opinion; Barnes dissented, joined by Greenlee and McDonald)

Herbert v. Herbert, 2021-CA-01291-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming on direct appeal and reversing on cross-appeal, holding that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds the affirmative defense of release because that defense had been waived but affirming on de novo review of the merits of claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, verbal assault, conversion, fraudulent misrepresentation, defamation, and breach of contract, but reversing the circuit court’s denial of attorney’s fees to the defendant and remanded for further proceedings.
(6-1-2: McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Carlton concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by McDonald; Emfinger did not participate.)

Other Orders

Lofton v. Lofton, 2021-CA-00035-COA (denying rehearing)

Yarborough v. Singing River Health Systems, 2021-CA-00668-COA (denying rehearing)

Buchanan v. State, 2021-CP-01069-COA (recalling mandate so motion for rehearing can proceed on merits)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of June 9, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down six opinions today. Topics include public project bidding, summary judgment in a property damage case, conversion by the owner of a collection agency, an appeal of a post summary judgment decision granting a Rule 60(b) motion based on fraud, a unanimous pro se PCR appeal win, and an election contest.

The Mississippi State Port Authority at Gulfport v. Eutaw Construction Company, Inc., 2020-IA-00881-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision that reversed the MSPA’s award of a project to the lowest bidder whose bid contained multiple errors and awarded the project to the second lowest bidder, holding that the lowest bidder’s errors were minor, the intended correct bid was evident on the face of the bid, and the corrected bid by the lowest bidder was a decrease in price.
(All justices concurred.)

Hardin v. Town of Leakesville, Mississippi, 2020-CA-01164-SCT (Civil – Property Damages/Summary Judgment/Proximate Cause)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of Leakesville, holding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that water that had accumulated under her house was caused by an act or omission attributable to the town.
(All justices concurred.)

Practice Point – This opinion contains a helpful discussion of the exacting standard that applies when a plaintiff seeks to prove causation by circumstantial evidence:

McGee v. Comprehensive Radiology Services, PLLC, 2021-CA-00666-SCT (Civil – Torts/Conversion/Fraud)
Affirming the chancellor’s finding that the president of a collections agency was individually and personally liable for $785,549.71 that she directed her company to delay remitting to a radiology group while also billing for and receiving commissions for collecting that money, holding that while the tort of conversion cannot be used to recover a mere debt it can be used to recover identifiable money belonging to the plaintiff which is what occurred here.
(All justices concurred.)

Riverboat Corporation of Mississippi v. Davis, 2020-IA-01244-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury/Negligence/Rule 60(b))
The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor the casino in a personal injury case stemming from a fall from a casino chair due to the lack of evidence that the casino breached a duty. The plaintiff then filed a motion to reopen the case under Rule 60(b)(1) alleging that the defendant committed fraud in its 30(b)(6) deposition based upon information the plaintiff discovered in an unrelated case about another chair at the casino. The circuit court granted the motion to reopen based on fraud and the defendant petitioned for interloc which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion because the plaintiff “fell far short of satisfying all of the elements of fraud” and because this case did not present the requisite “exceptional circumstances” for relief under Rule 60(b).
(All justices concurred.)

Practice Point – This opinion has a helpful summary of what is required to prove fraud under Rule 60(b)(1):

Magee v. State, 2019-CT-01794-SCT (Civil – PCR/Involuntary Guilty Plea)
Reversing the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s pro se PCR motion, holding that the circuit court granted an evidentiary hearing but failed to address the issue of whether the plaintiff’s guilty plead was involuntary because the plaintiff was affirmatively misinformed about the possibility of early release by his trial attorney and failed to allow the plaintiff to call witnesses or present evidence.
(Chief Justice Randolph did not participate.)

Meredith v. Clarksdale Democratic Executive Committee, 2021-EC-00305-SCT (Civil – Election Contest)
Affirming the trial court’s decision agreeing with the CDEC’s decision that a mayoral candidate resided at a lake house outside of the city limits rather than a funeral home apartment within the city limits, holding that the would-be candidate failed to prove by “absolute proof” that he met the residency requirement on or before the applicable deadline.
(Justice Coleman concurred in part and in the result) (“It is not in the court’s bailiwick to impose its judgment for that of the Legislature.”)

Other Orders

Hutto v. State, 2017-DR-01207-SCT (granting response to order granting motion for appointment of counsel for representation for successive petition for post-conviction relief filed by the Circuit Court of Hinds County)

Havard v. State, 2018-CA-01709-SCT (granting motion to file motion for attorney fees and expenses under seal)

Walker v. State, 2020-CT-00228-SCT (denying cert)

McLemore v. State, 2016-M-00364 (denying application for leave to proceed in the trial court with a warning against future frivolous filings)

Hand Down List