Madison v. Madison
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-00365-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-21-2006 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Replevin - Agreed order Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Order of Replevin Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-15-2005 Appealed from: Tate County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: ORDERED REPLEVIN OF GOODS FROM POSSESSION OF APPELLANT, AND APPELLANT’S COUNTERCLAIM AND ANSWER DISMISSED. Case Number: CV2003-325BT |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DAVID MADISON |
DAVID MADISON (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | LARS MADISON | MICHAEL KEVIN GRAVES |
|
|
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 - Agreed order |
| Summary of the Facts: | David and Lars Madison reached a settlement agreement but were unable to work together to carry out the agreement. Thereafter, the circuit court ordered that the goods be replevined from David, in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. The court also dismissed an answer and counterclaim filed by David. David appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | David argues that the court erred in signing an “agreed order” without the signature of any party to the dispute. There is no requirement in the replevin code provisions that a replevin order be issued by means of an agreed order. It appears to us that the only reason the order was titled as an “agreed” order was that the order had been drafted by Lars and his attorney as an agreed order, which they were unable to get David to sign. The court merely utilized the pre-created form instead of redrafting its own order. Additionally, the order was intended to be “agreed” to form only, not substance. Any possible prejudice arising from the lack of signatures would therefore be limited to matters of form, of which David has alleged none. While it would have been better for the court to re-draft the replevin order as a non-agreed order, no prejudice arose to David as a result of the court utilizing the form that it was given. The order merely enforced a settlement agreement to which David had already agreed. Since the order entered by the court does not constitute reversible error, there was no error in dismissing David’s counterclaim. There was no violation of David’s property or contract rights. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
