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)
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)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 