Stratton v. McKey


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2014-CT-01443-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2014-CP-01443-COA ; 2014-CP-01443-COA ; 2014-CT-01443-SCT
Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-08-2016
Opinion Author: Coleman, J.
Holding: Reversed and rendered.
Additional Case Information: Topic: Replevin action - Award of storage fees - Due process - Failure to file responsive pleading - Possession of truck - Damages - Section 11-37-131- Section 11-37-141 - Section 11-37-143 - Section 11-37-101
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson and Randolph, P.JJ., Lamar, Kitchens, King and Beam, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Maxwell, J.
Procedural History: JNOV
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-23-2011
Appealed from: AMITE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: HON. FORREST A. JOHNSON, JR.
Disposition: Awarded appellant posession of truck on the condition that appellant pay appellee $880 within 30 days
Case Number: 10-CV-0218-J
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Robert W. Stratton, Sr.




 ROBERT W. STRATTON, SR. (PRO SE)



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: Jerry McKey JERRY McKEY (PRO SE)  
    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: Replevin action - Award of storage fees - Due process - Failure to file responsive pleading - Possession of truck - Damages - Section 11-37-131- Section 11-37-141 - Section 11-37-143 - Section 11-37-101
    Summary of the Facts: Robert W. Stratton Sr. filed a replevin action, without bond, in circuit court against Jerry McKey. Stratton sought to recover an antique truck that he had on McKey’s property for several years. The circuit court granted Stratton relief, conditioned on Stratton paying McKey storage fees. Stratton appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: After the circuit court announced its ruling, Stratton specifically asked whether there was any basis for the award of storage fees to McKey when McKey did not file any response to the pleadings or a separate action asking for the storage fees. The circuit court explained that, in its opinion, a replevin action differed from a typical suit, and it was permitted to award McKey the storage fees based on McKey’s appearance at the hearing and the evidence presented. Stratton’s initial appeal and petition for writ of certiorari both challenge the circuit court’s ability to condition Stratton’s possession of the truck on his paying McKey damages that were never raised in a responsive pleading. Due process provides that before one may be judicially deprived of an important right, one must be given reasonable advance notice of a hearing at which one is afforded a meaningful opportunity to assert and defend that right. While Stratton may have had knowledge that McKey believed he was entitled to storage fees and would argue such at the hearing, and that McKey was considering filing abandonment papers on the truck based on the certified letter and bill Stratton received, the complete absence of service of process offends due process and cannot be waived. Thus, the circuit court erred in awarding McKey damages for storing Stratton’s truck when McKey never filed a responsive pleading giving Stratton notice that he was seeking damages. Judgment is rendered in favor of Stratton for possession of the truck. Stratton additionally seeks actual and punitive damages for the loss of “use, preservation, restoration[,] and the ability to display or sell his unique vintage vehicle[.]” Stratton never pursued his claim for damages at trial and presented no evidence of how his damages should have been calculated at trial or on direct appeal. Stratton brought his replevin action under section 11-37-131. As is apparent from that statute and sections 11-37-141 and 11-37-143, the Legislature did not include a damages provision in the statutes, though it did specifically allow for damages in replevin actions brought under section 11-37-101. Additionally, Stratton provides no cases in which a party has recovered damages for a replevin action brought under section 11-37-131. Thus, damages may not be awarded.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court