Tag: Real Property

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of September 29, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four opinions today. There is a case dealing with an attempt to collect early termination fees after a new board of supervisors terminated a service contract, a case dealing with a thorny procedural issue after a default judgment was entered on a counterclaim in an appeal from justice court, a domestic case regarding the parent’s school choice with potentially broader implications, and a criminal case addressing the weight of the evidence and improper testimony about prior convictions.

Broadband Voice, LLC v. Jefferson County, Mississippi, 2021-CA-01082-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a phone and internet company’s claim for early termination fees against the county after new slate of supervisors terminated the service contract, holding that under the plain language of the contract the fee was due on the termination date rather than the date of the notice of termination and that the early-termination-fee provision that was negotiated by the prior board was unenforceable against the subsequent board.
(9-0)

Gordon v. Dickerson, 2020-CT-00601-SCT (Civil – Real Property)
Reversing the Court of Appeals, the circuit court, and the county court for denying the landlord’s motion to set aside a default judgment in county court on the tenant’s counterclaim that she asserted on appeal from justice court, holding that the landlord was not in default for purposes of Rule 55 because the counterclaim was filed in violation of Rule 15(a) (re: amendment of pleadings) and Rule 13(k) (re: appeals from justice court) cannot be read to the exclusion of Rule 15(a).
(5-4: Chief Justice Randolph dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens and Justice Ishee; Justice King dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens.)

Practice Point – There is a lot of explanation of the various rules in play in this decision. Bookmark this one and re-read it whenever you handle and appeal from justice court.

Bryant v. Bryant, 2020-CT-00883-SCT (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the Court of Appeals and the chancellor in ordering that the three minor children attend a specific public school district over the wishes of their father who was made the “final decision maker” on such matters, holding that the language of the property settlement agreement authorized the chancellor use its powers “as superior guardian to make decisions that are in the best interest of children.”
(6-3: Justice Coleman dissented, joined by Justice Maxwell and Justice Griffis; Justice Maxwell wrote a separate dissent joined by Justice Coleman.)

NOTE – The majority and the dissents disagree on a big-picture issue: the relationship between the government’s role in the relationship between parents and children. Take a few minutes and read the majority and both dissents.

Moore v. State, 2021-KA-00420-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence because inconsistencies in testimony did not render the verdict implausible and holding that although it was improper for the prosecution to directly elicit testimony about past convictions the error was potentially waived and ultimately harmless.
(6-3-0: Justice Maxwell concurred in part and in the result, joined by Chief Justice Randolph and Justice Beam.)

In Re: Rules Governing Admission to The Mississippi Bar, 89-R-99012-SCT (reappointing Pieter Teeuwissen, Marcie Fyke Baria, and Gwendolyn Baptist-Rucker to three-year terms (11/1/22 through 10/31/25) as members of the Mississippi Board of Bar Admissions)
Millette v. Frazier, 2022-M-00451-SCT (denying petition for permission to appeal and lifting stay of trial court proceedings)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Appellate Decisions of September 6 and September 8, 2022

I was out of the office for an extracurricular conference on Tuesday. (I will issue a full refund for my failure to timely deliver those summaries.) All we got from the Mississippi Supreme Court this week is a rehearing denial and a denial of an application for post-conviction collateral relief. I have written even-shorter-than-normal snapshots of the Court of Appeals decisions below, which turned out to be almost entirely PCR and state boards and agencies decisions.

Supreme Court Orders of September 8, 2022

Chatman v. State, 2016-M-00424 (denying application for post-conviction collateral relief and warning that future filings deemed frivolous may result in sanctions and restrictions on filing in forma pauperis)

Russell v. State, 2019-CT-01670-SCT (denying rehearing)

Supreme Court Hand Down List

Court of Appeals Decisions of September 6, 2022

Burns v. State, 2021-KA-00310-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of possession of meth and sentencing, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant’s instruction on possession, and denying the pro se argument that he received ineffective assistance without prejudice.
(10-0)

Caston v. State, 2021-CA-00397-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff waived the right to challenge proportionality by pleading guilty and, in any event, failed to prove gross disproportionality.
(10-0)

Nguyen v. Bui, 2021-CP-00538-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancery court’s judgment mandating specific performance of a real estate contract, holding that the appellant’s argument did not raise issues of reversible error, lacked citation to authority, and were beyond the scope of appellate review.
(10-0)

Beasley v. State, 2021-CA-00653-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff failed to meet the two-prong Strickland test required to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.
(9-0: Judge Emfinger did not participate)

Norwood v. State, 2021-CA-00802-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of the plaintiff’s PRC motion, holding that the plaintiff did not prove that his due process rights were violated or that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
(10-0)

Roberts v. State, 2021-CA-00998-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for PCR, holding that the plaintiff’s claim as to the voluntariness of his guilty plea was procedurally barred and meritless and that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was meritless.
(10-0)

Wilson v. City of Greenville, 2021-CA-00316-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s untimely appeal of the Greenville City Council’s decision to accept and enforce his resignation as police chief and in granting the City’s replevin action for city equipment in the plaintiff’s possession and denying the plaintiff’s counterclaim and motions to dismiss/stay, holding that the City’s decision was supported by substantial, credible evidence and that the circuit court committed no error.
(8-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks did not participate)

Thomas v. PERS, 2021-SA-00375-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s judgment affirming the PERS Board, holding that the Board’s decision that the plaintiff failed to prove she could no longer perform her duties as a bus aid as a result of her workplace accident was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.
(10-0)

Laurel School District v. Lanier, 2021-CA-00384-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the chancery court’s decision dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint against the school district stemming from the school district’s failure to conduct a nonrenewal hearing, holding that the chancery court had jurisdiction to consider the complaint seeking relief for due process violations and to dismiss the claim so the plaintiff could obtain the hearing he had been denied.
(7-3: Judge Westbrooks dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes and Judge McDonald)

Other Court of Appeals Orders

Brewer v. Kemp, 2020-CA-00214-COA (denying rehearing)

Court of Appeals Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 9, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions today. There is one decision that turns on an appellate procedure issue, a workers’ comp decision, a real property decision addressing the lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law when a request was made under Rule 52, and two PCR cases.

Jones v. State, 2021-CP-01088-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a PCR motion because it was barred as a successive motion and time-barred, holding that the plaintiff did not show that these bars did not apply to his claim.
(10-0)

Townsend v. State, 2021-CP-01091-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff had waived his ineffective assistance of counsel claim when he pleaded guilty, that the indictment was not facially defective, that a pre-sentence report was not required, that the plaintiff’s due process rights were not violated because of his guilty plea, and that the plaintiff’s rights were not violated for sentencing him as a habitual offender.
(10-0)

Thompson v. AAA Cooper Transportation, 2021-CP-00658-COA (Civil – Property Damage)
Affirming the circuit court’s judgment dismissing an appeal from county court for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that because the appellant failed to file a notice of appeal and pay the cost bond within the time provided he had not timely perfected his appeal.
(10-0)

Darty v. Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Authority, 2021-WC-00986-COA (Civil – Workers’ Compensation)
Affirming the MWCC’s decision denying the claimant’s motion to reinstate his claim as time-barred, holding that the claimant’s failure to timely request review of the AJ’s dismissal of the claim due to the claimant’s failure to respond to a status request barred the claim.
(10-0)

PRACTICE POINT – This result is not as harsh as it seems from this short summary. The status request was issued on January 24, 2017, which was apparently more than a year after prehearing statements were filed. The order of dismissal for failing to respond to the status request was entered on March 2, 2017. The twenty days to file a written request for review of that order passed, and then another three years passed before the claimant hired a new attorney who filed a motion to reinstate the claim.

Rebuild America, Inc. v. Colomb, 2021–CA-00213-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Reversing the circuit court’s judgment that had affirmed both the county court’s dismissal of an action for unlawful entry and detainer and denial of the plaintiff’s motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law, holding that the county court committed reversible error when it did not provide findings of fact and conclusions of law after a request was made under Miss. R. Civ. P. 52.
(4-2-4: Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Emfinger dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Carlton, and Judge Wilson, and in part by Judge McDonald)

NOTE – Today’s unanimity streak was shattered in dramatic fashion with this decision. The disagreement between the majority and the dissent that interests me the most is whether Rule 52 applies at all. The majority held that it does and reversed because the county court did not make findings of fact and conclusions of law when it was asked to. The dissent argues in a footnote that Rule 52 does not apply:

Rule 52 states:

Maybe the dissent will bolster a cert petition and the Mississippi Supreme Court will weigh-in on this issue.

Other Orders

Beale v. State, 2020-KA-00614-COA (denying rehearing)

Devine v. Cardinal Health 110, LLC, 2020-CA-01101-COA (denying rehearing)

Thompson v. State, 2020-CP-01236-COA (denying rehearing)

Stribling v. Youth Court of Washington County, Mississippi, 2021-CA-00007-COA (dismissing appeal sua sponte for lack of appealable judgment)

Porras v. State, 2021-CP-00052-COA (denying rehearing)

Barnes v. State, 2021-KA-00404-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of August 4, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today and in both it reversed the Court of Appeals. One involves a judgment lienholder’s plight after a tax sale of which it was not given notice. The other is an appellate procedure case addressing whether there was a final, appealable order.

HL&C Marion, LLC v. DIMA Homes, Inc., 2020-CT-00750-SCT (Civil – Real Property)
Reversing the Court of Appeals and the chancellor in suit to conform and quiet title, holding that in this case where a home builder obtained and enrolled a judgment against the property owners for an unpaid construction balance, the property was sold at a tax sale and then sold again, that no legal authority required notice of the tax sale to the home builder/judgment lienholder prior to the expiration of the two-year redemption period and that the chancery clerk had no duty to conduct a search of the judgment roll. Judgment was rendered in favor of the purchaser.
(6-0: Chief Justice Randolph, Justice Beam, and Justice Griffis did not participate)

OVERRULE ALERT – This decision overruled at least two prior decisions where it was held that equity allowed for an extension of the two-year, statutory redemption period because such decisions run afoul of the Mississippi Constitution which gives the Legislature the exclusive right to set the conditions for redemption:

Humphrey v. Holts, 2021-CT-00046-SCT (Civil – Other)
Reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order, holding that the chancery court’s order dismissing the complaint upon the motion of one of two defendants left no claims to be adjudicated and it was therefore a final, appealable judgment.
(9-0: Justice King specially concurred, joined by Justice Kitchens)

PRACTICE POINT – Mississippi’s appellate courts dismiss a significant number of appeals for lack of final, appealable judgment by strictly applying Miss. R. Civ. P. 54(b). This opinion does not reference Rule 54(b) but it appears that the chancellor’s order in this case did not contain the magic words in 54(b). The Supreme Court essentially held that 54(b) did not apply here because the chancellor’s order disposed of the entire complaint (i.e. it did not dispute of fewer than all claims/parties) so the magic words were not required. My takeaway: When Rule 54(b) applies it must be strictly complied with, but don’t assume it applies.

In Re: Commission on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, 89-R-99011-SCT (Order appointing Helen Morris, Marcus A. McLelland, and Katherine K. Farese to three-year terms as members of the Commission on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education effective August 1, 2022)

In Re: Advisory Committee on Rules, 89-R-99016-SCT (Order authorizing and directing the disbursement of $15,000.00 from the Court’s Judicial System Operation Fund to the Mississippi Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules for its necessary work through September 30, 2022)

City of Jackson, Mississippi v. Johnson, 2020-CA-00318-SCT (denying rehearing)

Nelson v. State, 2020-M-01417 (denying application for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court filed pro se and warning petitioner against further frivolous filings)

In Re: Administrative Orders of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, 2022-AD-00001-SCT (En banc order directing the disbursement of $177,295.27 in civil legal assistance funds among the MS Volunteer Lawyers Project, North MS Rural Legal Services, and MS Center for Legal Services)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 2, 2022

In five opinions handed down today, the Mississippi Court of Appeals tackled implied trusts, trespass to timber, hearsay exceptions, and more.

Bays v. State, 2021-KA-00244-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming a conviction of one count of sexual battery by a person in a position of trust or authority, holding that it was error to admit testimony containing a hearsay statement by the 12-year-old victim under the 801(d)(1)(C) statement of identification hearsay exception but that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting the guilty verdict and holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s untimely request to submit evidence of another perpetrator or in denying the defendant’s request to re-call the victim.
(9-1-0: no separate opinion)

Ainsworth v. Plunk, 2021-CA-00488-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates)
Affirming the chancery court’s order requiring a father to transfer title of real property back to his two daughters, holding that the chancery court properly applied the remedy of an implied trust under the peculiar facts of this case where (1) the father deeded land to his daughters and reserved a life estate for himself prior to his upcoming marriage in case the marriage ended in divorce, which it did, (2) the father then told the daughters to deed the land back to him and he would execute a new deed where the daughters would be tenants in common with full rights to devise their half interest, (3) the daughters quitclaimed their interest back to the father, (4) and the father then said he would only deed back the land if one of the daughters gave up an African-American baby she had adopted.
(8-2-0: no separate opinions)

NOTE – In addition to its startling facts that would make a compelling movie, this opinion contains a helpful discussion of constructive trusts and resulting trusts, and the differences between the two that would not necessarily make a compelling movie.

Terpening v. F.L. Crane & Sons, Inc., 2021-CA-00544-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in a wrongful death action against an employer stemming from a fatal collision involving its employee, holding that the employer was not vicariously liable for the employee’s negligence because the employee was driving home from a week at a remote job site in a personal vehicle when the accident occurred and thus was not in the course and scope of his employment.
(10-0)

NOTES – The Court of Appeals held that the circuit court did not err in declining to apply the workers’ comp “traveling employee doctrine” outside of the workers’ comp arena. Additionally, the Court of Appeals dropped this handy paragraph to cite when the opposing party’s argument relies on out-of-state authorities:

(Please disregard this if I am ever the opposing party citing out-of-state authorities.)

Nalls v. State, 2021-KA-00592-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of attempted murder and possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for JNOV because the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and then rejecting several arguments made in the defendant’s additional, pro se brief.
(10-0)

Green v. Poirrier Properties, L.L.C., 2021-CP-00704-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision in a timber-trespass case, holding that the chancellor’s finding that the defendant’s removal of timber constituted a willful act and the chancellor’s award of damages were supported by substantial evidence.
(8-2-0: no separate opinions)

Other Orders

Booker v. State, 2018-CA-00664-COA (denying rehearing)

Manuel v. State, 2020-KA-00711-COA (denying rehearing)

Bridges v. State, 2020-CA-00816-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of June 14, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down two opinions today. One addresses a custody award against a backdrop of abuse. The other case involves a remainderman’s claim for damages for timber that was clear cut by the holder of a life estate.

Taylor v. Mississippi Department of Child Protective Services, 2020-CA-01194-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the youth court’s decision awarding durable legal custody of a child to his paternal grandparents, holding that the youth court complied with section 43-21-557(1)(c) and (e) and did not err in bypassing reunification between the mother and her children where there was proof of abuse.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Breeland v. Turnage, 2021-CA-00698-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancery court’s decision awarding the remainderman damages for timer that was cut from the property by the holder of a life estate, holding that the plaintiff had standing because he owned the land at the time of the lawsuit and his subsequent sale of the land did not disturb standing, that the landowner was entitled to collect damages for the profit obtained by devaluing his interested in the property via clear cut, and that the chancellor did not err in refusing to admit testimony about a witness’s prior conviction because the appellant did not argue any of the exceptions to Rule 404 to the trial court.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Carlton did not participate.)

Other Orders

Nowell v. Stewart, 2020-CA-00728-COA (denying rehearing)

Kreppner v. Kreppner, 2021-CA-00006-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 24, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today. Today’s offerings include a divorce case, a DUI/marijuana case, a personal injury case, a malicious mischief case, a jurisdiction case with Rule 54(b) claiming more victims, and a handful of PCR cases.

Camphor v. State, 2021-CP-00048-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that the circuit court’s decision was not clearly erroneous.
(All judges concurred.)

Powell v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, 2021-CA-00055-COA (Civil – Real Property/Appellate Jurisdiction/Rule 54(b))
Dismissing appeal of the chancery court’s order dismissing the debtor’s complaint with prejudice and granting the lender’s counterclaim seeking to proceed with a judicial foreclosure, holding that (1) because the counterclaim for judicial foreclosure was still pending the chancery court’s order did not adjudicate all claims against all parties and (2) the chancery court’s order did not contain the certification required by Rule 54(b).
(All judges concurred.)

Klis v. State, 2021-CA-00349-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that the motion was time-barred and that his ineffective-assistance of counsel claim did not provide an exception to the bar.
(Judge Smith did not participate.)

Short v. State, 2021-KA-00499-COA (Criminal – Felony/Jury Instructions)
Affirming conviction of malicious mischief, holding that a jury instruction setting forth the elements of malicious mischief did not constructively amend the indictment because the record failed to show the alleged variance and, in light of the lack of objection by the defendant at trial, there was no plain error by the circuit judge.
(All judges concurred.)

Montgomery v. Montgomery, 2020-CP-01135-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Divorce/Habitual Cruel and Inhuman Treatment)
Affirming the chancery court’s judgment of divorce and final judgment regarding division of property and other financial matters, holding that the chancery court did not err in granting the husband a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment which included throwing items, death threats, and behavior that caused the wife’s family to try to get her to seek medical or psychiatric help. Regarding division of property, the Court of Appeals held that the chancery court did not err in dividing the property as the parties had agreed to. The Court of Appeals handled this case graciously, but appropriately noted that the pro se appellant had “waived consideration of the issues she raises on appeal.”
(All judges concurred.)

NOTE – Hiring an attorney to handle your appeal is generally a good idea. Relatedly, if you can’t find one to take your case, it might be a sign. The appellant in this case represented herself and it did not go well. For example:

Frost v. State, 2021-CA-00152-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s petition for expungement, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that it had no jurisdiction.
(Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in result without separate written opinion. Judge Smith did not participate.)

Pipkin v. State, 2021-CA-00517-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s second motion for PCR, holding that the plaintiff failed to show that he had a procedurally-viable claim or an applicable exception to the procedural bar.
(Judge Wilson and Judge Lawrence concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Borsi v. State, 2021-KM-00643-COA (Criminal – Misdemeanor/DUI/Marijuana)
Affirming a conviction of DUI of marijuana, holding that the roadblock that led to the defendant’s arrest was for a proper purpose and conducted consistent with MHP’s general practice so there was no Fourth Amendment violation, that the defendant was not under custodial interrogation when he admitted to smoking marijuana so there was no Miranda violation, that the law was properly applied based upon “influence” rather than “impairment,” and that the trial court (in a bench trial) properly relied upon witness testimony and the evidence presented at trial. The defendant did not leave empty-handed, as the Court of Appeals reversed the assessment of an $85.00 transfer fee by the circuit clerk.
(Chief JUdge Barnes and Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

NOTE – This is the second opinion in the last few weeks where the defendant argued that he might have partaken of marijuana, but he was not impaired by it. And it is the second opinion where the Court of Appeals has held that “influence” is not synonymous with “impairment” in this context. (The other opinion was Briggs v. State summarized here.)

Brewer v. Bush, 2020-CA-00214-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/Jury Instructions)
Affirming a defense verdict in a personal injury lawsuit where the plaintiff was helping the defendant put up a barbed wire fence and a bungee cord snapped and struck the plaintiff in the eye, holding that (1) a rational jury could have found that there was no master-servant relationship or that the tools provided were reasonably safe and that the defendant did not breach any duty owed to the plaintiff, (2) the jury was fairly instructed on the issue of proximate causation, (3) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by giving the defendant’s instruction on “simple tools,” (4) submitting four verdict forms was not reversible error, and (5) the fact that defendant offered fifteen instructions did not result in prejudice to the plaintiff.
(All judges concurred.)

Practice Point – Fight jury instructions with jury instructions. If you don’t like something about opposing counsel’s jury instructions, propose one that fixes it:

Other Orders

Ladner v. State, 2020-KA-00299-COA (denying rehearing)
Denham v. Denham, 2020-CA-00675-COA (denying rehearing)
Dew v. Harris, 2020-CA-01261-COA (denying rehearing)
Miller v. State, 2021-TS-01412-COA (denying motion to reinstate appeal)
Nelson v. State, 2022-TS-00413-COA (denying appellant’s motion to stay appeal and dismissing appeal without prejudice for lack of final judgment

Hand Down List

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of March 15, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions today with a little something for everybody. There are two real-property decisions, two PCR denials, one criminal conviction affirmed, and an MTCA/12(b)(6) decision.

DeSoto County v. Vinson,  2021-CA-00122-COA (Civil – Real Property/Division of Subdivision Lot)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision reversing a DeSoto County Board of Supervisors decision regarding the division of a subdivision lot into two separate residential lots, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the properly owner should resubmit an application to divide property with written approval of “adversely affected” and “directly interested” parties or proceed under section 19-27-31 in chancery court.
(All judges concurred)

Land v. Land, 2021-CA-00402-COA (Civil – Real Property/Partition of Property)
Affirming the chancellor’s denial of complaint for partition, holding that chancellor did not err in ruling that the residential property claimed as homestead property by one party could only be partitioned by written agreement of the parties and could not be involuntarily partitioned by chancery court decree.
(All judges concurred)

Bridges v. State, 2020-CA-00816-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a motion for post-conviction relief, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the second PCR motion satisfied a statutory exemption to procedural bars and that the evidence did not show good cause for failing to provide additional affidavits.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in result, joined by Judge McDonald and Judge Lawrence, and joined in part by Judge McCarty)

Jackson v. State, 2021-KA-00292-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery and filming a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and a sentence to serve consecutive terms of thirty years and forty years, holding that there were no arguable issues for appeal based upon a Lindsey brief and the Court’s independent review of the record.
(All judges concurred)

Horton v. State, 2021-CP-00383-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the sentence was not unconstitutional and that his confession was voluntary.
(All judges concurred)

J.D. v. McComb School District, 2020-CA-00022-COA (Civil – Personal injury/Civil Procedure/12(b)(6))
Reversing the circuit court’s ruling granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, holding that the plaintiff’s allegations that a minor was attacked at school and that the school district had knowledge of similar conduct by the attacker and breached its ministerial duty to use ordinary care and to take reasonable steps to minimize foreseeable risk to the plaintiff.
(Judge Smith dissented, joined by Judge Greenlee and Judge Lawrence and joined in part by Judge Emfinger)

Practice Point: In footnote 6, the majority opinion addressed and rejected the dissent’s argument that the plaintiff should have included additional details regarding the alleged prior conduct of the attacker, summarizing the liberal pleading requirements of Rule 8:

Other Orders

None

Hand Down List Page