Muirhead v. Vaughn, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-02034-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-02034-SCT ; 2002-CA-02034-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-04-2004 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Property damage - Section 95-5-10 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Irving, Myers and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-24-2002 Appealed from: Choctaw County Chancery Court Judge: John Love, Jr. Disposition: TITLE CONFIRMED IN APPELLANTS, BUT DAMAGES DENIED FOR CUTTING OF TREES. Case Number: 2001-44 |
|
| Note: | The appellees motions for rehearing are denied. The original opinion is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | William F. Muirhead and Ruby Faye Muirhead |
DAVID MICHAEL BRISOLARA |
||
| Appellee: | Tracy Vaughn, Brad Vaughn and Bowman Timber Co., Inc. | RONALD STEPHEN WRIGHT KEVIN RAY NULL |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Property damage - Section 95-5-10 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Tracy and Brad Vaughn granted Bowman Timber Company a warranty deed pursuant to which Bowman Timber cut trees from land William and Ruby Muirhead claim belonged to them. The Muirheads filed a complaint seeking confirmation of title to the land and damages for trees they claimed had been cut without their permission. The Vaughns filed a counter-complaint alleging their ownership in the disputed property. Bowman Timber crossclaimed against the Vaughns seeking to be indemnified in the event ownership of the property was found to be in the Muirheads. The Muirheads filed a motion to dismiss the Vaughns's counter-complaint, which the chancellor granted. The chancellor determined that the Muirheads were the proper owners of the .2 acre parcel of land in dispute and held that damages were not warranted since the trees were so small they had no market value. The Muirheads appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Muirheads argue that the court erred in failing to award damages. Section 95-5-10(1) states that if any person cuts down another's tree without permission, he must pay the owner of the tree double the fair market value of the tree cut down, plus reasonable cost of reforestation, not to exceed $250 per acre. The only burden on the owner is to show that he owned the timber and that the timber was cut down without his consent. The statute does not require that the owner produce evidence of market value or reforestation costs. Once the chancellor was presented clear evidence that Muirhead owned the property and that the trees had been cut without his consent, the chancellor was obliged to award damages in some form. Since the chancellor erred in failing to award damages when guidelines were available for him to make an award, the case is reversed and remanded. Concerning sections (2) and (3) of section 95-5-10 which allow for punitive damages and attorney's fees or expert fees in the court's discretion, the chancellor should reconsider these sections in light of the reversal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
