The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions on this Constitution Day. There is something for just about everyone but PCR enthusiasts. Today’s opinions include personal injury cases, divorce cases, a real property case, an arbitration-award confirmation case, a youth court case, and a direct criminal appeal.
Franks v. Franks, 2023-CA-00088-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming final judgment of divorce, holding that the chancellor did not err in diving the martial home and ordering the husband to sell his portion to the wife where the husband agreed to do so, did not penalize the husband for embezzlement that occurred at his business but did not abuse her discretion in finding the husband’s adulterous relationship with the embezzler relevant in the Ferguson analysis, did not abuse her discretion in weighing the valuations of the marital property, did not abuse her discretion in awarding the wife attorney’s fees, did not abuse her discretion in not crediting the husband for payments made toward the marital home after the date of demarcation when he received the benefit of living in the home, and did not err in determining the amount of child support.
(8-0: Carlton did not participate)
Zemek v. Gunn, 2023-CA-00833-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s order denying a continuance and confirming an arbitration award, holding that the defendant waived the issue of timeliness and that, in any event, the confirmation petition was timely and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance.
(9-0)
Fox v. Allen Automotive, Inc., 2023-CA-00441-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing summary judgment in favor of a car dealership in a premises liability action, holding that the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff exceeded the scope of his invitation and became a trespasser where the plaintiff was injured while walking his dog and that because the plaintiff was an invitee there was a genuine issue of material facts as to whether the dealership had constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition.
(9-0)
NOTE – The plaintiff was walking a Heeler when he fell. If anyone ever claims that you can’t hear a footnote, you can refute them with this:
Anderson v. Grabmiller, 2023-CA-00593-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision awarding alimony to the husband, holding that the chancellor did properly consider rehabilitative alimony and that the chancellor did not err in his Armstrong analysis.
(9-0)
Brown v. State, 2023-KA-00648-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder but vacating the firearm enhancement portion, holding that the firearm enhancement should be vacated because the minimum sentence for that enhancement was less than the minimum sentence for the second-degree murder conviction, but that the State’s commends during closing did not rise to the level of plain error, that the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim should be denied without prejudice, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion admitting evidence of a shell casing recovered from the murder scene, that the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and that there was no cumulative error warranting reversal.
(8-1-0: Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without writing)
Jones v. Curtis, 2023-CA-00987-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming decision modifying child-custody agreement, holding that the chancery court had subject matter jurisdiction and did not err in considering facts and events occurring before the initial custody determination.
(7-2-0: McDonald and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing)
Cook v. Vowell, 2023-CA-00724-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming chancery court’s grant of specific performance of an option to purchase an interest in real property, holding that the chancellor did not err in finding that there was consideration for the contract where there was no separate consideration spelled-out for the option or in finding that there was a valid offer and acceptance.
(9-0)
In the Matter of L.C.: Doe v. Bolivar County Youth Court, 2022-CA-00614-COA (Civil – Other)
Reversing the youth court’s finding that the mother had not satisfactorily completed a service plan working towards reunification, holding that there was no substantial evidence to support the youth court’s finding that MDCPS had made requisite “reasonable efforts” towards reunification.
(7-2: Westbrooks dissented, joined by McDonald; McDonald also separately noted a dissent but did not write)
Georgen v. Estate of Brown-Barrett, 2023-CA-00344-COA (Civil – Personal injury)
Reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in a premises-liability case, holding that the trial court erred in finding that a baby gate leaned against a doorway in a residence did not constitute a dangerous condition.
(5-3: Carlton dissented, joined by Barnes, and Wilson; Westbrooks did not participate)
Other Orders
- Whiddon v. State, 2022-KA-00616-COA (denying rehearing)
- Crawford v. East Mississippi State Hospital, 2022-CA-00753-COA (denying rehearing)
- Jackson v. State, 2022-KA-01143-COA (denying rehearing)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 