Ladner v. Ladner
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01771-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-CA-01771-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-18-2003 Opinion Author: Bridges, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Jurisdiction - Supersedeas bond - M.R.A.P. 8 - Execution of judgment Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-17-2001 Appealed from: Pearl River County Chancery Court Judge: Johnny Lee Williams Disposition: MOTION TO DIVEST TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY GRANTED. Case Number: 99-0620-GN-TH |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Luther Ladner |
ERIK M. LOWREY |
||
| Appellee: | Ruby Joyce Stines Ladner | JOHN D. SMALLWOOD |
|
|
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: | Real property - Jurisdiction - Supersedeas bond - M.R.A.P. 8 - Execution of judgment |
| Summary of the Facts: | After Ruby Ladner obtained a judgment of divorce from Luther Ladner, Luther refused to execute the appropriate quitclaim deeds to convey to Joyce the real property she was awarded as a result of the divorce judgment. Joyce filed a motion to divest title to real property which the court granted. Luther appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction Luther argues that the court erred in asserting jurisdiction over Joyce's motion to divest title following her filing an appeal in the divorce. Although Luther's conduct is ripe for a contempt action, the chancery court has access to broad equitable powers to enforce its judgments, including the power to forcibly divest parties of property according to its judgment. In addition, Luther did not seek a stay under M.R.A.P. 8 either by filing a supersedeas bond or by appearance in the trial court or from the appellate courts nor did he appeal the judgment in the court below. Even when an appeal is pending, the appellee may execute on the decree in the lower court, providing the appeal is without a supersedeas bond and that the court does not in any way broaden, amend, modify, vacate, clarify, or rehear the decree. Issue 2: Execution of judgment Luther argues that the court erred when it permitted Joyce to execute on the divorce judgment after she had appealed the judgment. When an appeal is filed and neither party files a supersedeas bond on the judgment, either party can execute on the judgment in their favor. Luther did not cross-appeal nor did he file a supersedeas bond. Therefore, the chancellor was within his discretion to order the divestiture of title to enforce the judgment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
