City of Jackson v. Jackson Oaks Limited P'ship
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00254-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-00254-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-22-2003 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Property damage - M.R.C.P. 60(b) - Settlement Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., McRae and Smith, P.JJ., Cobb, Diaz, Easley and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Waller, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial/60 (b) motion Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-23-2002 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: William H. Singletary Disposition: The chancellor denied the Appellant's MRCP 60 (b) motion. Case Number: 154,629 S/2 |
|
| Note: | 1999-CA-00714-SCT City of Jackson v. Jackson Oaks Limited Partnership; Hinds Chancery Court 1st District; LC Case #: 154629D; Ruling Date: 12/18/1998; Ruling Judge: William H. Singletary | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | The City of Jackson, Mississippi |
J. ANTHONY WILLIAMS
TERRY WALLACE |
||
| Appellee: | Jackson Oaks Limited Partnership; Hinds Chancery Court | PIETER JOHN TEEUWISSEN DALE DANKS, JR. |
|
|
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 - M.R.C.P. 60(b) - Settlement |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jackson Oaks Limited Partnership filed a complaint against the City of Jackson alleging ongoing erosion and flood control problems along Hanging Moss Creek near Ridgewood Road and requesting injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages due to significant loss of land, damage to parking facilities, damage to drainage pipes, and damage to, and the continued threat of loss of, the only ingress/egress to Jackson Oaks. The chancellor entered judgment for $1.1 million in favor of Jackson Oaks. The City filed a Motion for Clarification and Relief from Judgment which the court denied. The City appealed, and the Supreme Court remanded the case with directions that the chancellor consider the merits of the motion. The City filed a Renewed Motion for Relief and Clarification listing additional issues which were not in the original motion. On remand, the chancellor entered an order denying the relief sought in the City's motion for clarification and relief from judgment. The City appeals the denial of Rule 60(b) relief. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The City refers to its renewed motion for relief or clarification. However, the chancellor was correct in only considering the merits of the earlier motion since the Supreme Court specifically remanded the case with directions that the court consider and rule on the merits of the Motion for Clarification and Relief from Judgment. The City argues that the chancellor erred in finding the amount received by Jackson Oaks in its settlement with John Hancock was moot. The City requested that the chancellor consider the settlement Jackson Oaks received from John Hancock. Jackson Oaks then tendered the entire settlement amount received from John Hancock to the City. Therefore, the chancellor correctly found that this issue is moot. The City also argues that the chancellor erred by failing to address the issues raised by the City in its Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment including issues of the running of the statute of limitations and sovereign immunity. Rule 60(b) motions should be denied when they are merely an attempt to relitigate a case. Although the City renewed its motion for summary judgment, the chancellor heard arguments on the merits after the motion was renewed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
