Tag: Rule 60(b)

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of January 9, 2024

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down four opinions on Tuesday. Notably, not one of the decisions was a clean affirmance. There is a personal injury/MTCA decision, a riparian property damage case, a divorce decision, and an arbitration decision.

Mississippi Department of Rehabilitation Services v. Butler, 2022-CA-00176-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming on direct appeal and reversing on cross-appeal in an MTCA car wreck case, holding that the circuit court did err after holding a bench trial and finding that the defendant-driver was in the course and scope of her employment and her negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, but holding that the circuit court erred in not awarding damages for the loss of a cell phone and repair of a wedding band and that the circuit court erred in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for additur on the loss-of-consortium claim.
(9-0: Emfinger did not participate)

Hegman v. Adcock, 2022-CA-00501-COA (Civil – Property Damage)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s judgment affirming the county court in a riparian rights case, holding that the circuit court did not err in affirming the denial of the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief and damages and the denial of the defendant’s Rule 52 motion, but reversing the circuit court’s decision affirming the court court’s finding the plaintiff liable on a tortious interference with business relations counterclaim and the $95,000 award on that counterclaim.
(8-2-0: Wilson and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Bolivar v. Bolivar, 2022-CA-00640-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Vacating the chancery court’s judgment on a motion for contempt in “highly contentious divorce proceedings,” holding that the movant was required to have a new Rule 81 summons for her fourth contempt motion “regardless of the status of the litigation.”
(10-0)

Coleman v. Stan King Chevrolet, Inc., 2022-CA-00943-COA (Civil – Contract)
Reversing the circuit court’s dismissal of a motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the statute of limitations had run on the underlying claims, holding that where the defendants initially sought to compel arbitration but later obtained a default judgment on their counterclaim in the circuit court, the defendants’ rejection of the plaintiff’s attempt to proceed with arbitration justified relief under Rule 60(b)(6), holding that the circuit court erred in addressing the statute of limitations issue, and remanded for the matter to be restored to the active docket and stayed pending conclusion of arbitration proceedings.
(5-3-2: Lawrence and Smith concurred in part and in the result without writing; McCarty concurred in result only without writing; Greenlee dissented, joined by Enfinger)

NOTE – The proceedings in the circuit court were convoluted. It necessary to read the opinion to get a handle on what took place and the Court’s ruling.

Other Orders

Roberson v. State, 2021-CA-01182-COA (denying rehearing)

Carpenter v. State, 2022-KA-00398-COA (denying rehearing)

Davis v. State, 2022-KA-00573-COA (denying rehearing)

Boyington v. State, 2022-KA-00601-COA (denying rehearing)

Pickle v. State, 2022-CP-00929-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of March 9, 2023

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today and not one is pedestrian. The first involves whether the loser in an insurance coverage dec action can come back after the mandate in the dec action and after being vindicated in the underlying liability action, to get relief under Rule 60(b) from the no-coverage judgment. In the next case, the Court weighs in on the Jackson mayor’s attempt to veto the city council’s inaction on the garbage collection contract. The third case is an appeal of an order of contempt and order denying recusal after the attorney failed to appear at trial after representing to the circuit court that he had Covid.

Scruggs v. Farmland Mut. Ins. Co., 2021-CA-00877-SCT (Civil – Insurance)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, holding that the mandate rule deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction to entertain a Rule 60(b) motion twenty years after the Supreme Court’s opinion and mandate.
(9-0)

CONTEXT – The facts make this ruling a bit more interesting than the holding suggests. Many years go, the plaintiffs (Scruggses) lost an insurance coverage dec action in state court 20 years ago. Coverage had been denied because the Scruggses were accused of committing intentional acts by Monsanto. The Scruggses then prevailed in Monsanto’s federal lawsuit against them. I’ll let the Supremes take it from here:

Lumumba v. City Council of Jackson, 2022-CA-00855-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the special chancellor’s summary judgment in favor of the city council in this episode of Jackson’s garbage-collection saga, holding that the mayor did not have legal authority to veto a non-action or negative vote of the city counsel the city council’s non-ratification of the garbage collection contract presented by the mayor.
(9-0)

NOTE – The Court also held that the trial court did not err in allowing the city council to admit exhibits (public records that had been produced to the mayor) at the MSJ hearing that were not yet filed in the record of that case and that the chancellor did not err in denying the mayor’s motion for additional findings because the mayor could not both object to the court’s consideration of the city council’s exhibits while also asking the court to consider the mayor’s extrinsic evidence.

In Re: Ali M. Shamsiddeen, 2021-CA-01217-SCT (Civil – Other)
Affirming order of contempt and order denying recusal, holding that the trial court did not err in finding defense counsel in contempt for failing to appear at a pretrial conference (in person or virtually, after being given that opportunity) or at the trial because defense counsel said he had COVID but only provided a vague medical excuse and quarantine order but refused to provide medical documentation of the diagnosis.
(7-2: Kitchens dissented, joined by King)

NOTE – Here is the email the attorney sent to the court on the eve of trial.

Other Orders

In Re: Local Rules, 89-R-99015-SCT (granting motion to amend Tenth Chancery Court District’s local rules)

Shannon v. Shannon, 2020-CT-00847-SCT (dismissing previously-granted cert sua sponte)

Simmons v. Jackson County, 2020-CT-01014-SCT (denying cert)

Young v. Freese & Goss PLLC, 2020-CT-01280-SCT (denying cert)

Boyd v. State, 2021-CT-00066-SCT (denying cert)

Turner & Associates P.L.L.C. v. Estate of Watkins, 2021-CT-00258-SCT (denying cert)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of June 9, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Orders

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

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

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

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

Hand Down List

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of March 29, 2022

The Court of Appeals handed down one opinion today that is part MTCA decision on the open and obvious defense and part cautionary tale about the hazards of, and interplay among, Rules 54(b), 59(b), and 60(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 3 of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure. Since I just had one opinion to wrestle with today I took a deeper dive into the timeline and the motions filed at the trial court level.

McGee v. Neel Schaffer Engineers and Planners Inc., 2020-CA-01277-COA (Civil – Wrongful Death)
Affirming in part the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment as to some defendants and dismissing the appeal as to the other defendants. The plaintiff’s decedent died of electrocution while moving a water pump on a State-aid culvert reinforcement project due a conflict with a utility line. The plaintiff filed suit against Pike County, Toles (the County’s State-aid engineer), Neel Schaffer (the engineer’s employer), and others not relevant to this appeal. The timeline is key to unpacking this opinion:

  • July 27, 2018: Summary judgment granted to Neel Schaffer’s because Toles was acting as a county employee and immune under the MTCA and that as a corollary Neel Schaffer, as Toles’s employer, was entitled to MTCA immunity. Final judgment entered as to the claims against Neel Schaffer using the magic words of Rule 54(b) (i.e. “final judgment” and “no just reason for delay”).
  • August 1, 2019: Summary judgment granted in favor of Toles on the claims against him in his individual capacity because it had previously determined Toles was entitled to MTCA immunity. Final judgment entered as to these claims.
  • June 18, 2020: The plaintiff filed a “motion to reconsider” the July 27, 2018, and August 1, 2019, summary judgments.
  • September 21, 2020: Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider was properly treated as a Rule 60(b) motion rather than a Rule 59(b) motion because it was filed more than ten days after the judgments had been entered, found to be untimely and meritless under Rule 60(b), and therefore denied.
  • October 28, 2020: Summary judgment granted as to the claims against Pike County and Toles in his official capacity, finding that they were entitled to immunity under the MTCA.
  • November 17, 2020: The plaintiff appealed from the summary judgments of July 27, 2018; August 1, 2019; and October 28, 2020, but not the September 21, 2020 denial of the motion to reconsider.
  • November 24, 2020: Neel Schaffer and Toles in his individual capacity filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely.
  • November 25, 2020: The circuit court entered a final judgment as to the claims against Pike County and Toles in his official capacity.
  • December 4, 2020: Plaintiff filed an amended notice of appeal, again appealing only the summary judgments.
  • December 8, 2020: Neel Schaffer and Toles filed a second joint motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely.

The Court of Appeals first addressed the July 27, 2018, and the August 1, 2019, final judgments, and held that because the plaintiff did not file a motion to reconsider within ten days of either judgment or a notice of appeal within thirty days of either judgment, the plaintiff’s appeal of those judgments was untimely.

The Court of Appeals then addressed the dismissal of the claims against Pike County and Toles, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the dangerous condition was open and obvious, was not created by the government’s negligent maintenance or repair and it, and was not caused by Toles. The Court noted that the issue of whether a danger is open and obvious is usually a question for the trier of fact, but that there are cases where conditions are so clearly dangerous that the issue can be decided as a matter of law. The Court also held that neither Pike County nor Toles could be liable for causing a dangerous condition created by a third-party without notice and sufficient time to correct the dangerous condition:

(All judges concurred)

PRACTICE POINT: If you win summary judgment as to fewer than all claims/parties, request a 54(b) final judgment like the defendants did here. If the other side wins summary judgment as to fewer than all claims/parties, beware of a 54(b) final judgment that starts your appeal shot clock.

Other Orders

Wilson v. State, 2020-CP-00762-COA (denying motion for rehearing)
Hardin v. Hardin, 2020-CA-1314-COA (denying appellee’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees)
Jiles v. State, 2021-CP-34-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Hand Down List