Webb v. Town Creek Master Water Mmgt., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-02270-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-02270-SCT ; 2003-CA-02270-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-26-2012 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: DA - Reversed and Remanded; CA - Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Eminent domain - Issues on remand - Supreme Court mandate Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - EMINENT DOMAIN |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-09-2010 Appealed from: Lee County Chancery Court Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: Awarded damages and attorney fees to the Appellees. Case Number: 46077 |
|
| Consolidated: 2010-CA-01104-SCT Town Creek Master Water Management District of Lee, Pontotoc, Prentiss, and Union Counties, Mississippi v. Denton Webb, Ruby Webb, Rachael Webb and Dan W. Webb; Lee Chancery Court; LC Case #: 46077; Ruling Date: 06/09/2010; Ruling Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. | ||
| Note: | Town Creek Master Water Management District of Lee, Pontotoc, Prentiss, and Union Counties, Mississippi v. Denton Webb, Ruby Webb, Rachael Webb and Dan W. Webb; Lee Chancery Court; LC Case #: 46077; Ruling Date: 06/09/2010; Ruling Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Denton Webb, Ruby Webb, Rachael Webb and Dan W. Webb |
PAUL NATHAN JENKINS, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Town Creek Master Water Management District of Lee, Pontotoc, Prentiss and Union Counties; and John Morgan, Jimmy Bucy, Kenneth Oswalt and Houston Pannell in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Commissioners of Town Creek Master Water Management District of Lee, Pontotoc, Prentiss and Union Counties | DAVID R. SPARKS THOMAS HENRY FREELAND, IV JOYCE FREELAND |
|
|
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: | Eminent domain - Issues on remand - Supreme Court mandate |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Webbs own three tracts of land. Tract A is owned by Dan and Rachael Webb as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. It contains approximately 28.92 acres a d is the residence of Dan and Rachael. Tract B consists of 42.84 acres and lies east of Tract A. When cause No. 46077 was filed, Tract B was owned by Dan and Rachael Webb subject to a life estate in Denton and Ruby Webb, whose residence was on Tract B. Denton is now deceased. Tract C consists of 40 acres and lies east of Tract B. This tract was also owned by Dan and Rachael, with Denton and Ruby holding a life estate in the property. Town Creek Water Management District, in conjunction with the Soil Conservation Service, appraised a tract of land in preparation of obtaining a permanent easement for the construction of Dam No. 48. This appraisal shows the description of Tract A. The appraisal gave the land a before “take” value of $5,173.00 and an after “take” value of $2,618.00, with the difference being $2,555. Town Creek filed its petition for approval of the appraisal, naming only Dan and Rachael as defendants. The petition described Tract B and did not correlate with the property described in Town Creek’s appraisal, which described Tract A. Town Creek obtained an interlocutory decree allowing the taking of the property. After construction of the dam had begun, Dan and Rachael (the named respondents in Town Creek's petition), and Denton and Ruby Webb, filed a complaint against Town Creek seeking damages for the destruction of their property. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed and the court granted Town Creek's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Webbs' claims. The Webbs appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. After a trial, the trial court entered a final judgment awarding the Webbs compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees, and prejudgment interest. The trial court later entered an “Opinion as to Punitive Damages” awarding the Webbs $127,500. Town Creek appeals, and the Webbs cross-appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The trial court erred by limiting its consideration to the issue of damages after the Supreme Court had remanded the case “for a trial on all issues.” The mandate issued by an appellate court is binding on the trial court on remand. In the prior appeal, the Court found that the trial court had erred in granting summary judgment, because the Webbs’ due-process rights were violated by Town Creek’s failure to provide notice before exercising dominion and control over their property. The Court also found that “the Webbs [we]re entitled to pursue their claims, subject to the requisite applicability, proof and damages, as to be determined by the trial court on remand.” The trial court, however, did not hold a trial on all issues on remand. At the beginning of the trial on remand, the chancellor declared that he would consider the issue of damages only. Addressing “all issues” on remand requires more than merely measuring damages – it requires addressing all claims properly pleaded and whether the Webbs sufficiently proved all elements necessary to prevail on the claims as framed in their Third Amended Complaint. Those claims included conversion, trespass, and continuing permanent trespass. All are recognizable under the common law as intentional interference with property. The Webbs made an additional state-law claim under section 95-5-10 for Town Creek’s destruction of pine seedlings on the property. Finally, the Webbs pleaded deprivation of due process. Thus, they made state-law claims of abuse of process and a mixed federal constitutional and statutory claim, i.e. a Section 1983 claim. The case is again remanded for a new trial on all issues. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
