Hobbs Automotive, Inc. v. Sheila S. Dorsey
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-02654-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-02654-SCT2003-CA-02654-SCT2003-CA-02654-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 08-11-2004 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 09-15-2005 Holding: Vacated and dismissed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Counterclaim - Jurisdiction - Section 9-9-21 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Hobbs Automotice, Inc. |
Robert D. Gholson; Thomas T. Buchanan; Marcus Douglas Evans |
||
| Appellee: | James & Shelia S. Dorsey | James Dorsey; Lawrence E. Abernathy III |
|
|
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: | Contract - Counterclaim - Jurisdiction - Section 9-9-21 |
| Summary of the Facts: | As a result of a disputed vehicle sale, Hobbs Automotive, Inc. d/b/a Kim’s Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Toyota, filed a complaint for replevin without bond in the County Court of Jones County against Shelia and James Dorsey. The Dorseys filed a counterclaim alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. The Dealership moved to dismiss its complaint, which was granted. The Dorseys did not dismiss their counterclaim. Following a trial, the jury rendered a $100,000 verdict in the Dorseys’ favor. The Dealership appealed to circuit court which affirmed. The Dealership appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Section 9-9-21, the jurisdictional statute in effect at the time the counterclaim was filed, provided that the jurisdiction of the county court shall not be affected by any counterclaim where the amount sought to be recovered exceeds $75,000. In their counterclaim, the Dorseys sought compensatory damages in an amount not to exceed $100,000 and punitive damages for an unspecified amount. These sums exceeded the jurisdictional limit of the county court. Pursuant to section 9-9-21, the Dorseys were required to give notice to the Dealership, and both parties were required to make a motion, within twenty days after the filing of Dorseys’ counterclaim, to transfer the case to the circuit or chancery court of the county in which the county court was located. No such notice was given, and the parties failed to make a motion within twenty days. Since the parties did not follow these procedures and the counterclaim failed to comply with the then jurisdictional prerequisites, the counterclaim can not be adjudicated in county court. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
