Tag: Equitable Distribution

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of January 7, 2025

Happy New Year! Many thanks to all who read the blog over the past year, I truly appreciate your support. But that is all the time we have for sentimentality because the Mississippi Court of Appeals wasted no time getting back in the action. There are ten opinions today and you can read my summaries below.

Poole v. State, 2023-KA-01162-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of possession of meth, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motions for directed verdict of JNOV where the defendant failed to file a motion a suppress evidence and failed to contemporaneously object to the evidence being admitted.
(7-2-0: Westbrooks and McDonald concurred in result only without writing, St. Pe’ did not participate.)

Everett v. State, 2024-CP-00206-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the trial court’s dismiss of a “petition for judicial review” as time-barred because it was filed two and one-half years after the petitioner had exhausted his administrative remedies.
(9-0: St. Pe’ did not participate)

Begnaud v. Begnaud, 2023-CA-00822-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversing the chancellor’s decisions in a divorce case, holding that the chancellor erred in failing to value guns before awarding them to one party, in failing to consider the tax consequences of receiving funds from a retirement account, and in awarding a credit for child support payments.
(9-0: St. Pe’ did not participate)

In re: Harvey; Chimento v. Schwark, 2023-CA-00398-COA (Civil – Wills, Trust, & Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision in a will contest, holding that the chancellor did not err in finding that the testator had capacity, that there was not abuse or suspicious circumstances giving rise to a presumption of undue influence, that there was due execution, or that the proponent overcame the presumption of revocation.
(9-0: St. Pe’ did not participate)

Rencher v. State, 2024-CP-00008-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of a PCR motion, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit.
(6-2-0: Wilson and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing; Weddle and St. Pe’ did not participate)

Jones v. State, 2023-CP-01247-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a PCR motion, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the petitioner did not obtain permission from the Mississippi Supreme Court before filing the motion.
(9-0: St. Pe’ did not participate)

Walker v. Mississippi State Parole Board, 2023-CP-00919-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming dismissal of petition for judicial review of MDOC decision, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
(9-0: St. Pe’ did not participate)

Boone v. State, 2023-KA-00684-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction two counts of gratification of lust, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and that the trial court did abuse its discretion in denying a motion in limine to exclude prior bad acts testimony or in giving an instruction re: sufficiency of the unsupported word of the victim.
(9-0: St. Pe’ did not participate)

Mount v. State, 2023-KA-00807-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the defendant competent to stand and that the verdict was not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence regarding his sanity at the time of the offense.
(5-4-0: St. Pe’ did not participate)

Wilson v. Barnes-Wilson, 2023-CA-00945-COA (Torts – Other)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion where the plaintiff took no action of record for two years and then failed respond to the motion to dismiss for over a year and even then only after the case was dismissed.
(7-2-0: McDonald and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing; St. Pe’ did not participate.)

Other Orders

  • Alexander v. State, 2022-KA-00977-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Campbell v. State, 2022-KA-01055-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Galang v. State, 2023-KA-00006-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Howell v. State, 2023-KM-00265-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Wilkerson v. Allred, 2023-CA-00393-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Harris v. State, 2023-KA-00460-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Brown v. State, 2023-KA-00658-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Haley v. State, 2023-CP-00918-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 21, 2024

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down a bounty of twelve opinions yesterday. I noticed a stray opinion from Thursday, May 9 so that is also summarized below. With a total of thirteen opinions, there is a lot of ground covered.

Martin v. State, 2023-KA-00044-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault and armed robbery after a trial in absentia, holding that the verdicts were not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0)

Tilley v. Gibbs, 2022-CA-01150-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming judgment awarding physical custody of a child to the father, holding that the chancellor did not err in his Albright analysis and that substantial, credible evidence supported the custody determination.
(10-0)

Hamer v. State, 023-CP-00701-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of relief and dismissal of PCR motion without an evidentiary hearing, holding that the PCR motion lacked sufficient support to warrant a evidentiary hearing.
(8-2-0: Westbrooks and McDonald concurred in result only without writing)

McVay v. State, 2022-KA-00523-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of four counts of capital murder and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the trial court did not commit plain error in admitting evidence of prior bad acts during cross-examination of the defendant and holding that the defendant’s trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to object.
(7-2-0: Wilson and Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Carlton did not participate)

Jackson v. State, 2022-KA-01143-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder and burglary and sentence to life without eligibility for early release, probation, or parole, holding that the indictment was not fatally defective; that there was no plain error in denying a motion to suppress the defendant’s statements to law enforcement where the defendant made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda; that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant’s proposed insanity defense and imperfect self-defense instructions; and that the verdicts were not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(8-2-0: Wilson and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Practice Point – This is a handy citation to tuck away for one of those “I know its true by I can’t find a case that says so” situations:

Thompson v. State, 2023-CP-00218-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of the petitioner’s fourth and fifth PCR motions, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding them time-barred.
(10-0)

Smith v. West, 2023-CA-00297-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming dismissal for failure to prosecute a personal injury case, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion after granting several continuances over nearly ten years since the action was commenced.
(10-0)

Signaigo v. Grinstead, 2022-CA-01212-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancellor’s rulings in an adverse possession action, affirming the finding that the plaintiff could not prove the ownership element but reversing the finding that title was vested in the defendant as a matter of law because that issue was beyond the scope of the motion for summary judgment.
(8-2-0: Wilson and Westbrooks concurred in result only without writing)

McKenzie v. McKenzie, 2022-CA-01175-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s findings in a divorce proceeding, holding that the chancellor did not err in the equitable division of marital property, in determining the amount of child support, in determining the amount of alimony, or in denying the mother’s request for attorney’s fees.
(9-0: Smith did not participate)

Carr v. State, 2022-KA-00491-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments such that the court was required to intervene on its own initiative.
(10-0)

Pickens v. State, 2022-KA-00822-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of meth while in possession of a firearm, holding that after reviewing counsel’s Lindsey brief and independently reviewing the record that there were no errors warranting reversal.
(10-0)

Hearn v. State, 2023-CP-00275-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding the motion time-barred and that no statutory exceptions applied.
(9-0: Smith did not participate)

From May 9, 2024

Daniels v. State, 2022-KA-00705-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming in part and reversing in part after the the defendant was convicted of one count of manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of murder, three counts of aggravated assault, and one count of shooting into an occupied dwelling, holding that indictment’s error as to the count for murder was harmless so the conviction of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter was affirmed but holding that the indictment was legally insufficient as to aggravated assault counts and that the error was compounded by repetition in jury instructions and the State’s closing arguments.
4-1*-5: Westbrooks specially concurred, joined by McDonald, Lawrence and Smith (each of whom also joined the lead opinion); Emfinger concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Barnes, Carlton, Wilson, and McCarty.)

Other Orders

  • Arnold v. State, 2021-KA-01426-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Rutland v. Regions Bank, 2022-CA-00720-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Malone v. State, 2022-CP-00958-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Boyett v. Cain, 2022-CP-00978-COA (denying rehearing)
  • EEECHO Inc. v. Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board, 2022-SA-01068-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Boyette v. State, 2022-CP-01239-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 7, 2024

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down ten opinions today. They started out with a run of short and sweet 10-0 opinions and then things got more interesting. There are two split opinions on the admission of confessions, a construction contract/negligence case, a divorce decision, several more direct criminal appeals, and a couple of PCR opinions.

Johnson v. State, 2022-KA-01127-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery, holding that after a review of counsel’s Lindsey Brief and the record that there was no reversible error.
(10-0)

Carter v. State, 2023-KA-00052-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant’s accident instruction and that the castle-doctrine’s presumption of fear was procedurally barred and that the evidence was sufficient to show that the defendant did not act in self defense.
(10-0)

Reed v. State, 2023-KA-00248-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of possession of hydrocodone/acetaminophen, holding that after a review of counsel’s Lindsey Brief and the record that there was no reversible error.
(10-0)

Dobbins v. State, 2023-CA-00562-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming summary dismissal of PCR petition, holding that the petition was statutorily barred.
(10-0)

Mac Long Homes, LLC v. Olvera Construction, LLC, 2022-CA-00938-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s dismissal of of a contractor’s claims against a subcontractor after the contractor lost an arbitration proceeding against the homeowner, holding that the breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation claims were time-barred, that the common-law indemnity claim was not yet ripe so dismissal without prejudice was proper, that the negligence claim was not time-barred, and that the circuit court did not err in denying the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint.
(8-2-0: Westbrooks specially concurred, joined by McDonald and McCarty; Wilson concurred in the result only without separate written opinion)

NOTE – The common-law indemnity holding here is interesting. I have been in and around the argument that crossclaims of common-law indemnity against codefendants are not proper for lack of ripeness. I expect that this opinion will be cited frequently in the future.

Hollon v. State, 2023-CP-00202-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR petition, holding that the guilty plea was voluntary and not coerced, that trial counsel was not ineffective, and that the petitioner was not otherwise entitled to relief.
(9-0: Smith did not participate)

Winstead, v. State, 2022-KA-01235-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death, holding that the trial court erred in admitting the defendant’s confession because it was obtained in violation of Edwards v. Arizona but that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming weight of evidence of guilt, and holding that the trial court did not err by admitting a bloodstain card.
(6-4: Carlton concurred in part and in the result without writing; Greenlee and Smith concurred in part and dissented in part without writing; Lawrence concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Carlton, Greenlee, and Smith.)

NOTE – The partial dissent took issue with the majority’s holding that the confession should have been excluded. Here is the majority’s summary of its holding on that issue:

Smith v. State, 2023-KA-00185-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery of a minor, holding that the circuit court did not err in admitting the defendant’s confession or by holding the trial in absentia.
(4-2-4: Wilson and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing; McCarty dissented, joined by Westbrooks and McDonald, and joined in part by Barnes and Emfinger)

Weatherly v. Weatherly, 2022-CA-00804-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s rulings in a divorce proceeding, holding that the chancellor did not err in awarding sole physical custody to the mother, in awarding child support to the mother to the father despite the mother’s significantly higher income, in the valuation and distribution of marital property, in awarding the father alimony, or in denying the father’s request for attorney’s fees.
(3-2-4: McDonald and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing; Barnes, Westbrooks, and Emfinger concurred in part and dissented in part without writing; Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Barnes, Westbrooks, and Emfinger, and joined in part by McDonald and McCarty; Smith did not participate)

City of Verona v. Moffett, 2022-WC-01050-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC’s finding that a former police officer sustained an 80% loss of wage-earning capacity, holding that there was substantial, credible evidence supporting the Commission’s decision that was based on evidence of physical injuries and PTSD resulting from a physical assault while the claimant was responding to a domestic violence call.
(6-1-3: McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing; Wilson dissented, joined by Smith and Emfinger.)

Other Orders

  • Silver Dollar Sales, Inc. v. Battah, 2022-CA-00476-COA (rehearing denied)
  • Fluker v. State, 2022-KA-00692-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Quinn v. State, 2022-KA-00962-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of October 17, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down three opinions today. There is one divorce case, one direct criminal appeal, and one appeal of the dismissal of a negligence case for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery and discovery-related orders from the circuit court.

Capocaccia v. Capocaccia, 2022-CA-00129-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversing the chancellor’s findings on equitable distribution, child support, and college expenses but affirming finding that the father was in contempt, holding that the chancellor erred in the division of the marital estate without referencing or discussion the parties’ debts and assets, erred in awarding child support in excess of the statutory guidelines without specific findings supporting the deviation, and erred in assigning equal responsibility for the children’s college expenses; but that there was no reversible error in denying the father’s motion to continue contempt proceedings or in finding the father in contempt.
(8-2-0: Wilson and McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Russell v. State, 2022-KA-00447-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding there was no error in allowing a State’s witness to narrate events depicted in a surveillance video while it was played to the jury.
(9-1-0: McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

McAlpin v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 2022-CA-00334-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision granting a motion to dismiss in a negligence suit based on the plaintiff’s failure to heed court-ordered discovery requirements, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff’s motion for additional time to comply with the scheduling order that was filed after the court had advised there would be no more extensions and on the date that the court had ordered that additional discovery responses were due and that the trial court did not err in dismissing the case with prejudice for repeated failures to comply with the court’s orders.
(10-0)

PRACTICE POINT – Here is the Court’s analysis of the facts of this case under standard in Beck v. Sapet, 937 So. 2d 945 (Miss. 2006):

Other Orders

Grantham v. Grimm, 2021-CA-01314-COA (denying rehearing)

SDBT Archives LLC v. Penn-Star Insurance Company, 2022-CA-00099-COA (denying rehearing)

Williams v. State, 2022-KA-00100-COA (denying rehearing)

Hamilton v. State, 2022-CP-00217-COA (denying rehearing)

Sanders v. Reeves, 2022-CP-01059-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of April 18, 2023

The Court of Appeals handed down six opinions yesterday. There was one direct criminal appeal, a statute of frauds/equitable estoppel case, an equitable distribution case, and three PCR cases.

Beckworth v. Beckworth, 2022-CA-00048-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the chancery court’s ruling in a dispute between siblings over the ownership of a home, holding that the brother who had been evicted by the sister failed to prove the elements of equitable estoppel and therefore he could not get past the statute of frauds.
(10-0)

NOTE – I like this statement on credibility calls:

Cleveland v. State, 2021-CA-01130-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming summary denial of a motion for PCR, holding that the petitioner’s first claim was meritless and his second claim was time-barred.
(10-0)

Rutledge v. State, 2022-CP-00513-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of a PCR motion, holding that the claim on appeal was procedurally barred because the petitioner sought to challenge the validity of the conviction but had not presented that issue to the trial court.
(10-0)

Johnson v. Johnson, 2021-CA-01080-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancellor’s findings on remand for application of the Ferguson factors to equitable distribution, holding that the chancery court did not abuse its discretion by awarding her lump-sum alimony or 45% of his military pension, but sua sponte addressing an incorrect calculation of the percentage of military survivors benefits awarded and reversing/rendering on that issue.
(10-0)

Jackson v. State, 2022-CP-00325-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a PCR motion, holding that the circuit court properly dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to obtain permission from the Supreme Court.
(10-0)

McClusky v. State, 2022-KA-00115-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of fondling, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to introduce testimony of prior abuse to show lack of mistake or in allowing the state to question the defendant about pornographic material on his cell phone for impeachment purposes.
(10-0)

Other Order

Clark v. Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC, 2021-CA_00173-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of June 7, 2022

A deposition took me out of blogging service for most of the afternoon, so a little later than usual I give you summaries of the nine opinions handed down by the Mississippi Court of Appeals. These opinions cover the statute of frauds, trusts, appellate jurisdiction, youth court, authentication of text messages, equitable division and alimony in a divorce case, workers’ comp, PCR, and more.

SEL Business Services, LLC v. Lord, 2021-CA-00368-COA (Civil – Real Property/Statute of Frauds)
Affirming the chancery court’s dismissal of a suit to reclaim property or alternatively for unjust enrichment, holding that a “handshake deal” for the purchase of a building that was sold before that deal came to fruition was subject to the statute of frauds, that the statute of frauds was not satisfied, and that the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment was therefore unavailable.
(All judges concurred.)

Lennon v. Lowrey & Fortner, P.A., 2021-CA-00426-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates/Appellate Procedure/Appellate Jurisdiction)
Granting a motion to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction in a case of first impression, holding that the 30-day time period for perfecting an appeal began to run upon the entry of an order adjudicating a claim for attorney’s fees against a trust–not the final judgment terminating the trust.
(All judges concurred.)

Smith v. Adams County Youth Court, 2021-CP-00196-COA (Civil – Juvenile Justice)
Dismissing an appeal of the denial of a minor’s post-disposition motion for modification arguing that his guilty plea was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that the notice of appeal was prematurely filed because the youth court had not been given an opportunity to consider these arguments and any supporting evidence.
(Judge Wilson concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Warner v. Warner, 2020-CA-01098-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Divorce/Valuation/Equitable Division/Alimony/Contempt)
Reversing the chancellor’s judgment in a divorce case, holding that the chancellor erred in valuation and equitable division of marital assets, in the award of alimony, and in finding the ex-husband in contempt and awarding attorney’s fees as a result.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Simpson v. State, 2021-KA-00075-COA (Civil – Felony/Authentication)
Affirming convictions of two counts of first-degree murder, first-degree arson, and possession of a deadly weapon by a felon, holding that there was no plain error with regard to the authentication of text messages and that there was no merit to the claim of ineffective assistance for not objecting to the properly-authenticated text messages.
(Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

Carson v. State, 2021-KA-00436-COA (Criminal – Felony/Weight and Sufficiency)
Affirming conviction of possession of cocaine, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying a motion for new trial challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence and finding no merit to the defendant’s pro se arguments that his rights under the Fourth Amendment and the Confrontation Clause were violated, that the State’s case hinged on “racial profiling,” that he had ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the circuit judge failed to comply with Sharplin.
(All judges concurred.)

Ellis v. State, 2020-CP-00770-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the motion was time-barred and that the plaintiff failed to raise any claims resulting in the deprivation of his fundamental constitutional rights that would defeat the time bar.
(Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Reardon v. State, 2020-CP-01259-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the motion was procedurally barred and that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, deprivation of fundamental rights, and failure to recuse were without merit.
(Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion. Judge Greenlee and Judge McCarty did not participate.)

Duren v. Effex Management Solutions, LLC, 2021-WC-00337-COA (Civil – Workers’ Compensation)
Affirming the Commission’s ruling, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s decision that the claimant failed to prove that he suffered a permanent disability and the decision to award TTD through the date of MMI, but denying post-MMI medical treatment, prescription, and mileage reimbursements.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

DEEPER DIVE: This case had an interesting post-MMI fact pattern where the claimant was released to return to work without restrictions, was offered to return to work for the Employer at his pre-injury wages, and returned to work there, but then quit working for the Employer due to complaints of pain. Under these facts, the Court of Appeals noted that there was a presumption of no loss of wage-earning capacity and held that the claimant did not overcome it:

Other Orders

Hammer v. State, 2019-KA-01633-COA (denying rehearing)
Shannon v. Shannon, 2020-CA-00847-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of May 10, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Orders

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

Phew…

We did it, folks.

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of April 26, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals dropped eight nine opinions today and there is a lot to sort through. Two divorce cases (one involving equitable distribution of a marital residence and the other a life estate via constructive trust for a mother-in-law), a PCR case, a workers’ comp case involving medical causation, an adverse possession/tax sale case, a personal injury via falling through a roof case, an appeal of an estate case dismissed for lack of final order, and two criminal cases. One of the criminal cases is the second “should the indictment for attempt have alleged an overt act” case we have gotten in a row and it sees a dissenting Judge Westbrooks align herself with Justice Coleman’s dissent last week.

I am always balancing the desire to post these summaries quickly and the need to get back to paying work with the desire to provide a reasonably polished [free] product. Due to the number of cases and the fact that I have to leave the office a little early to coach a little league baseball game, there is extra weight on the “speed” side of the balance today.
Thanks,
Management

Archie v. Archie, 2020-CA-01370-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Equitable Distribution/Marital Residence)
Affirming the chancellor’s modification of a final judgment of divorce as to equitable distribution of the marital residence, holding that there was no error in the chancellor ordering the ex-wife to sell the paid-off martial home in order to satisfy the ex-wife’s obligation to pay her ex-husband his share of the equity where the ex-wife had been unable to secure a loan on the paid-off house, even though the ex-husband had not pleaded a request for an order requiring the ex-wife to sell the residence. The court repeatedly noted that the chancellor had broad discretion to “fashion an equitable remedy” and held that the chancellor’s remedy here was appropriate.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and the in the result without separate written opinion.)

Bevalaque v. State, 2021-CP-00150-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s third PCR motion, holding that the motion was time-barred and successive-writ barred and that no exceptions applied.
(All judges concurred.)

Bowdry v. City of Tupelo, 2021-WC-00390-COA (Civil – Workers’ Compensation/Medical Causation)
Affirming the MWCC’s finding that the claimant’s neck claim was not related to his compensable work-injury, holding that the Commission’s finding that the claimant failed to prove causation was supported by substantial evidence.
(All judges concurred.)

PRACTICE POINT: The Court of Appeals noted that on appeal they do not review the AJ’s findings, but the Commission’s findings and did not address the claimant’s arguments about the AJ’s findings:

This is because the Commission does not function as an appellate court reviewing the AJs’ findings. This is because the Commission, not the AJ, is the ultimate trier and finder of fact for workers’ comp claims. See, e.g., Hugh Dancy Co. Inc. v. Mooneyham, 68 So. 3d 76 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)

Anderson v. Jackson, 2019-CA-01773-COA (Civil – Real Property/Adverse Possession/Unclean Hands/Tax Sale)
Reversing the chancellor’s findings granting title of real property to one party (Levon) based on findings that Levon had obtained title by adverse possession or by tax sale and that the opposing party (Rosie) had unclean hands, holding that the chancellor erred in granting title to Levon because he failed to prove the elements of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence, that the tax sale was void due to flawed notice of redemption, and that the doctrine of unclean hands was erroneously applied to bar Rosie’s challenge because Rosie’s conduct was related to a forty-year-old estate case, not the transaction at issue.
(All judges concurred.)

Since accusations of “unclean hands” get thrown around in litigation on occasion, I thought this summary of the equitable doctrine of unclean hands is a useful refresher:

NOTE – As always, but only more so here, if this case applies to your practice you need to read it yourself. There are many details in this forty-page opinion that I have not even attempted to tease apart.

Herron v. Herron, 2021-CA-00090-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Constructive Trust/Property Valuation)
Affirming the chancellor’s findings in a divorce action granting a life estate via constructive trust in a home on the marital property to the ex-wife’s mother in assigning value to property awarded to the ex-husband, holding that there was clear and convincing proof that the house was intended to be owned by the mother in a life estate and that there was substantial credible evidence supporting the chancellor’s valuations of the personal property in question.
(All judges concurred.)

Gillespie v. Lamey, 2021-CA-00076-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/Summary Judgment/Duty to Warn)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of a defendant dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for personal injuries sustained when the plaintiff fell through a roof while working on a skylight on the defendant’s property, holding that (1) the plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant failed to warn the plaintiff of any dangerous condition of which the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge and (2) the allegedly dangerous condition was “intimately connected” to the work he was hired to do.
(Judge Smith did not participate, all other judges concurred.)

Smith v. Richmond, 2020-CP-01064-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates/Civil Procedure)
Dismissing the appeal, holding that the pro se appellant’s attempted appeal of the chancery court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside an interim order, a motion to recuse, and a “motion to change jurisdiction” must be dismissed because each of these motions was an interlocutory order not appealable as of right.
(All judges concurred.)

Wayne v. State, 2021-KA-00084-COA (Criminal – Felony/Rebuttal Evidence/Sufficiency and Weight of Evidence)
Affirming murder conviction, holding that there was no error (1) in allowing the State to recall a State’s witness and introduce and play the defendant’s recorded statement in rebuttal because the recorded statement contradicted the defendant’s trial testimony, (2) in introducing the defendant’s entire statement because it was proper impeachment evidence, or (3) in denying the defendant’s post-trial motion because the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the conviction was not against the weight of the evidence.
(All judges concurred.)

Beale v. State, 2020-KA-00614-COA (Criminal – Felony/Overt Act)
Affirming conviction two counts of attempted murder of two police officers, holding (1) an indictment for the crime of attempted murder does not require the description of an overt act, (2) that two jury instructions did not constitute a constructive amendment to the indictment, and (3) testimony from an officer about what a witness told him at the crime scene was not hearsay because they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but to explain the next steps in the course of his investigation.
(Judge Westbrooks dissented, joined in part by Judge McDonald. Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion. Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Wilson concurred in result only without separate written opinion. All other judges concurred.)

NOTE – We have gotten an “is the indictment missing an alleged overt act” case in back-to-back hand-down days. In her dissent, Judge Westbrooks’s argues that she is taking a position consistent with the position that Justice Coleman took just last week in Brady v. State (my post here) (opinion link here).

Other Opinions

Durrant Inc. v. Lee County, Mississippi, 2019-CA-01826-COA (denying motion for rehearing)
Bell v. State, 2020-CT-00592-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Hand Down List