Tag: Custody

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of October 10, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today. All but three are direct criminal appeals. Of the six direct criminal appeals, two are reversals. On the non-criminal side of the ledger are an MDES case, a custody decision, and a tangled web of a case stemming from the sale of a log house.

Crutchfield v. State, 2022-KA-00815-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first degree murder and felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and that it was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0)

Hoffman v. MDES, 2022-CC-00948-COA (Civil – State Boards & Agencies)
Affirming denial of a claim for unemployment benefits based on the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that substantial evidence supported the finding that bank statements alone did not provide sufficient evidence of self-employment income, that the claimant’s right to a fair hearing was not violated, and that the claimant was required to repay an overpayment amount.

(8-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Jackson v. State, 2022-KA-00009-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing murder conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction where the State’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence of motive and proximity.
(6-1-3: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without written opinion; Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part without written opinion; Emfinger dissented, joined by Greenlee)

NOTE – Here is the heart of the Court’s reasoning:

Rodgers v. State, 2022-KA-00179-COA (Civil – Felony)
Affirming conviction of possession of meth but reversing conviction of conspiracy to sell meth, holding that there was insufficient evidence of the conspiracy count because the alleged co-conspirator was not aware of the alleged conspiracy.
(7-1-0: McDonald concurred in part and in result without written opinion; Westbrooks and Emfinger did not participate.)

White v. State, 2022-KA-00607-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction or armed robbery, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting the defendant’s admissions of guilt during his interrogation because the admission was freely and voluntarily made and because the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
(10-0)

Young v. Niblett, 2022-CA-00294-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision modifying custody and awarding sole physical custody to the father, holding that the evidence supported the chancellor’s determination that there was a material change in circumstances and holding that the chancellor’s failure to include a summary of the GAL’s qualifications along with the summary of the GAL’s recommendations was not reversible error.
(10-0)

Britt v. Orrison,  2022-CP-00165-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancery court’s dismissal of a petition for contempt, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the issue of the appellant’s request for costs stemming from a prior appeal and that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in denying a motion to recuse, but that the chancellor erred in dismissing the petition for contempt with respect to the sale of a log house.
(8-1-0: Wilson concurred in result only without written opinion; Lawrence did not participate.)

NOTE – There is a lot of procedural background and litigation background in this opinion that I have not delved into.

Kirkland v. State, 2022-KA-00851-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of nine counts of touching a child for lustful purposes, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying a motion to sever and hold three different trials for each of the three victims and or in finding no discovery violation when the State did not tell the defense that one of the victims had her disclosure date tattooed on her wrist.
(8-1-0: McCarty concurred in part and in the result without written opinion; Smith did not participate.)

Bolton v. State, 2022-KA-01118-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of business burglary, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s request for a larceny instruction and that there was no error in denying the motion for new trial because the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(9-1: McDonald dissented without written opinion.)

Other Orders

Gussio v. Gussio, 2020-CA-00785-COA (denying motion for appellate attorney’s fees)

Manley v. Manley, 2021-CA-00700-COA (denying rehearing)

Knight v. State, 2021-CP-01192-COA (denying rehearing)

Prather v. State, 2021-KA-01416-COA (denying rehearing)

Brown v. State, 2022-CP-00069-COA (denying rehearing)

Brandi’s Hope Community Services, LLC v. Walters, 2022-CA-00188-COA (denying rehearing)

Keller v. State, 2023-TS-00901-COA (granting time to respond to show cause notice)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 22, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions today. There are two direct criminal appeals, two custody cases, and a real property case deciding the parties’ respective rights to a common wall that gave me bar exam flashbacks.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of B.P., 2021-CA-01288-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancellor’s order in a custody matter, holding that the chancellor did not err in finding that the child’s appointed guardians successfully rebutted the natural parent presumption and that it was in the child’s best interest to remain in the guardians’ custody.
(8-1-1: No separate opinions. Westbrooks concurred in the result only and McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion.)

Ndicu v. Gacheri, 2022-CA-00415-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancellor’s judgment in a custody matter, holding that the chancellor did not manifestly abuse his discretion by denying the father’s request for past child support and education expenses.
(10-0)

Kelly v. State, 2022-KA-00577-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for new trial based on an allegation that a juror misrepresented her lack of familial relationship with the victim where the claimed familial relationship was not supported by credible evidentiary support and, even if there was a familial relationship, there was no evidence the juror knew about it when she said she was not related to the defendant.
(8-1-1: No separate opinions. Westbrooks concurred in result only; McDonald dissented.)

NOTE – The alleged familial relationship surfaced when a member of the defendant’s family sent the juror in question a Facebook message:

LIFE TIP – Do not message jurors.

Alford v. Cotton Row Hospitality, LLC, 2022-CA-00125-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming in part and reversing in part on direct appeal and cross-appeal in a case about a common wall between two properties in a downtown area, holding that Side A of the wall had established a prescriptive easement for the use of the wall but did not obtain an ownership interest by adverse possession of the wall that was located on Side B’s property and included in Side B’s deed, that there was no equitable need for Side B to sell the wall to Side A, and that Side A did not have to reimburse Side B for its expense in supporting the wall Side B incurred after tearing down the other three walls of Side B’s property.
(10-0)

NOTE – This opinion also discusses the doctrine of unclean hands (it did not apply) and the adequacy of pleading the prescriptive easement claim (it was adequate).

Smith v. State, 2020-KA-00774-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of assault and possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the trial court committed harmless error (i.e. not plain error) by giving a pre-arming jury instruction that was not objected to, that the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant’s identity, that the trial court did not err in giving a flight instruction where the defendant did not provide an independent and uncontradicted reason for his flight, and that the defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective.
(8-2: Emfinger dissented, joined by Wilson.)

NOTE – The dissent’s position is that the defendant’s appeal of his conviction and sentence was not properly before the court:

Other Orders

Friley v. State, 2021-KA-00791-COA (granting pro se motion for time for rehearing motion)

Renfroe v. Parker, 2021-CA-01048-COA (denying rehearing)

McFarland v. State, 2021-CA-01311-COA (denying rehearing)

Everett v. State, 2021-CP-2021 (denying rehearing)

Fagan v. Faulkner, 2022-CA-00130-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of August 10, 2023

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two decisions today. Both are domestic relations cases involving with children (custody and visitation). Both are reversals (one reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the chancellor while the other reversed the chancellor). Both are authored by Justice Beam.

Blagodirova v. Schrock, 2020-CT-01162-SCT (Civil – Custody)
Reversing a 4-2-4 Court of Appeals decision and reinstating and affirming the chancellor’s ruling in a custody matter, holding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the chancellor’s finding of a material, substantial, and adverse change in circumstances that warranted custody modification.
(9-0)

NOTE – Here is the Court’s recap of the circumstances at issue:

Brownlee v. Powell, 2022-CA-00196-SCT (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversing the chancellor’s decision on an unmarried, non-parent, former live-in partner’s petition for in loco parentis visitation rights, holding that the chancellor erred in finding that the petitioner lacked standing without citing Mississippi law and in disposing of the case under 12(b)(6); that there was no plain error in the chancellor considering text messages without allowing other evidence; and that the chancellor erred in finding the petition frivolous and awarding attorney’s fees.
(6-3-0: Kitchens concurred in result only, joined by King and Griffis, and joined in part by Ishee.)

NOTE – The person seeking visitation won a trip back to the trial court, but I don’t read this opinion as blazing path to victory on the merits. Here are a few excerpts

and…

and…

and…

Other Orders

McPhail v. McPhail, 2020-CA-00739-SCT (denying petition construed by the Court as one for rehearing as untimely)

Moreland v. Spears, 2021-CT-00714-SCT (denying cert)

Norwood v. State, 2021-KA-00903-SCT (denying rehearing)

Brooks v. Jeffreys, 2021-CT-01113-SCT (denying cert)

Simoneaux v. State, 2022-CT-00532-SCT (dismissing cert petition)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of July 25, 2023

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)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of January 3, 2023

Happy New Year! The courts are back in action so I am too. The first hand down list of 2023 has four opinions from the Mississippi Court of Appeals. Two are personal injury cases, one is a custody modification case, and the other is a PCR case.

Mallard v. State, 2022-CA-00152-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the denial of a PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff’s right to a speedy trial was not violated and that a discrepancy in the sentencing order and transcript was a scrivener’s error not warranting reversal.
(10-0)

Yarborough v. Singing River Health Systems, 2021-CA-00668-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming judgment in favor of the defendant hospital after a bench trial in a negligence suit stemming from a fall while the plaintiff was get onto a medical transport bus, holding that the duty owed was the duty owed to an invitee and there was no evidence that the steps to the bus were not reasonably safe, that the decision was not against the weight of the evidence, that the trial court did not err in excluding testimony that the driver was in the habit of of being late, and that an objective person could not find the judge biased based on a comment she made while stepping down from the bench.
(7-2-0: Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge Lawrence did not participate)

Moreland v. Spears, 2021-CA-00714-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming modification of custody and visitation, holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion by awarding the mother sole legal custody, by restricting the father’s visitation, or by not finding the mother in contempt for withholding visitation during March 2020 while the COVID “stay-home order” was still active.
(10-0)

COVID AND THE LAW – The father argued that the mother should be held in contempt for withholding a visitation that was due to occur during the March 2020 COVID shutdown. The mother testified that she tried to set up alternate times but the father refused. The Court of Appeals held that the particular facts of this case supported the chancellor’s decision of no contempt:

Cornell v. MDHS, 2021-SA-00784-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming in part and reversing in part summary judgment in favor of MDHS in a case alleging that MDHS placed the plaintiff in foster care with a know pedophile, holding that MDHS is statutorily immune from suit regarding the investigation and licensing of the foster parents’ home but reversing the grant of summary judgment on the issues of whether MDHS’s failure to report allegations of abuse and MDHS’s failure to conduct required visits were the proximate cause of continued abuse.
(8-2: Judge Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Chief Judge Barnes)

Other Orders

Edwards v. State, 2021-KA-00261-COA (denying rehearing)

Virden v. Campbell Delong, LLP, 2021-CA-00478-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of December 1, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. The first addresses the applicable standards for taking testimony of minors 12 or older in custody disputes. The other is a 5-4 split on whether a minor can be bound by a noncompete that covers intellectual property and provides for liquidated damages under the exception for contracts “affecting personal property.”

Denham v. Denham, 2020-CT-00675-SCT (Civil – Custody)
Affirming and part and reversing in part a chancellor’s rulings in a custody dispute, holding that the chancellor applied the incorrect legal standard in deciding that the children could not testify and erred by failing to record the in-chambers interviews, that a parent does not have an absolute right to call an unemancipated teenager to testify in open court, and that if one parent is permitted to present evidence of adultery the other parent must also have the opportunity to present such evidence.
(9-0)

NOTE – This opinion has an interesting discussion of the tender years exception as it applies to teenagers on page 13:

Watercolor Salon, LLC v. Hixon, 2021-IA-01151-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the trial court’s denial of a salon’s motion for TRO and preliminary injunction against a former employee who was 20-years-old when she signed a noncompete, holding that it was not fundamentally a contract affecting personal property and that it was unenforceable since the former employee disaffirmed the contract.
(5-4: Chief Justice Randolph concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Chamberlin, Justice Ishee, and Justice Griffis.)

NOTE – Here is the Court’s summary of its rationale for its holding that the employment contract was not a contract “affecting personal property”:

Other Orders

Loden v. State, 2002-DP-00282-SCT (granting motion to set execution date)

Brewer v. Bush, 2020-CT-00214-SCT (denying cert)

Gordon v. Dickerson, 2020-CT-00601-SCT (denying rehearing)

Seals v. Stanton, 2020-CA-00741-SCT (denying rehearing)

Pipkin v. State, 2021-CT-00517-SCT (denying cert)

Pickle v. State, 2021-CT-00972-SCT (denying cert)

Luster v. State, 2022-M-00248 (granting application for leave to proceed on filing petition for post-conviction collateral relief in the trial court)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of November 1, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals kicked off November with eight opinions. There are two domestic cases dealing with custody and divorce, a personal injury case adjacent to a workers’ comp claim with a statute of limitation issue, two reversals in administrative cases (MDES and MDHS), two PCR cases, and one criminal case.

Jarvis v. State, 2021-CP-00930-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff’s guilty plea waived his defective-indictment claim based on alleged insufficiency in the State’s evidence and that his ineffective assistance claim lacked merit.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Blagodirova v. Schrock, 2020-CA-01162-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming in part and reversing in part a chancellor’s child-custody modification order, holding that the chancery court manifestly erred by finding an adverse effect on the child, did not err in denying attorney’s fees, and did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to compel completion of a financial disclosure statement.
(4-2-4: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge Carlton concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Greenlee, and Judge Smith.)

Baughman v. Baughman, 2021-CA-00074-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part on an appeal and cross-appeal from a divorce proceeding, affirming denial of the ex-husband’s claim for separate maintenance, affirming the denial of divorce on the grounds of adultery, and reversing the denial of divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.
(5-4-0: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson, Judge Greenlee, and Judge Lawrence concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; and Judge Carlton did not participate.)

Keys v. Rehabilitation, Inc., 2021-CA-01338-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming dismissal of certain claims as barred by the statute of limitations, holding that the plaintiff’s claims against a third-party (not the Employer, Carrier, or TPA) arising from the utilization review process in the course of his treatment for a workers’ comp injury were barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
(9-0: Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

NOTE – A critical aspect of this decision was that the lawsuit did not arise from the denial of workers’ comp benefits:

Bowman v. State, 2020-KA-01371-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder and tampering with evidence, holding that the trial court did not err in allowing the state medical examiner to testify about the cause and manner of death, in denying motions to suppress evidence seized at the defendant’s Mississippi property and in his vehicle in Utah, in denying a flight-evidence motion in limine and giving a flight-evidence jury instruction, or in refusing the defendant’s request for additional circumstantial evidence instructions, and that the convictions were not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and were based on sufficient evidence.
(7-2-0: Judge McCarty and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Smith did not participate.)

MDHS v. Reaves, 2021-SA-01133-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the chancery court’s order directing MDHS to reimburse the plaintiff for past child-support payments, holding that reimbursement was improper because a noncustodial parent cannot recover the child-support payments he made on behalf of his child.
(7-3: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson and Judge Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Wallace v. State, 2021-CP-01149-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s second PCR petition, holding that the court did not err when it was not persuaded that the guilty plea lacked a factual basis and was involuntary, that the indictment was defective, or that counsel was ineffective.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Vector Transportation Co. v. MDES, 2021-CC-00576-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the circuit court’s judgment affirming the MDES Board of Review’s determination that an employee was entitled to unemployment benefits, holding that the employer met its burden of proof to show that the employee’s termination was for misconduct.
(6-3: Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part; Judge Westbrooks dissented, joined by Judge Wilson and joined in part by Judge McDonald; Chief Judge Barnes did not participate.)

Other Orders

Simpson v. State, 2021-KA-00075-COA (denying rehearing)

Terpening v. F.L. Crane & Sons, Inc., 2021-CA-00544-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of October 18, 2022

We got five opinions today from the Mississippi Court of Appeals. There are two chancery cases, one dealing with termination of parental rights and another dealing with an appeal from a judgment of divorce, distribution, and child support. There is an appeal of a summary judgment in a slip and fall case, an unsuccessful appeal from a default judgment, and a criminal case challenging the admissibility of witness testimony.

Middlebrook v. Fuller, 2021-CA-00590-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancery court’s judgment adjudicating paternity and terminating parental rights, holding that there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights and that the chancellor did not err in making that determination contrary to the GAL’s recommendation.
(9-1: Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part without written opinion.)

Hill v. Central Sunbelt Federal Credit Union, 2021-CA-00833-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision granting summary judgment dismissing a slip and fall case, holding that rainwater on a porch did not constitute a dangerous condition where it was actively raining, surveillance video showed that water was not pudding or accumulating on the porch, and there was no evidence of other falls.
(7-1-1: Judge Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion; Judge Smith did not participate.)

La Casa I, LLC v. Gottfried, 2021-CA-00347-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to set aside entry of default, holding that the inadvertence by the defendant’s registered agent was not a legitimate explanation justifying the default and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the defendant had not presented a sufficient colorable defense.
(10-0)

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00593-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that a witness’s testimony that she saw the defendant with a firearm weeks before the incident was properly admitted and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0)

Green v. Green, 2021-CP-01167-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part on appeal from the chancery court’s judgment in a divorce case, holding that the appellant waived her right to challenge the merits of her divorce because she failed to appear at the hearing on the merits, that she waived that issue of distribution of marital assets by failing to cite legal authority to support her claims on appeal, but reversing and remanding for the chancellor to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with Ferguson and to issue written findings concerning the reasonableness of the amount of child support.
(8-2: Judge McCarty concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Greenlee -“If there is ever a case for waiver, this is it.”)

Other Orders

Roberson v. State, 2020-CA-01208-COA (denying rehearing)
Siggers v. State, 2021-CP-00985 (denying rehearing)

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 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.